\-\ 


HARVARD  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


HARVARD 
THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


EDITED  FOR  THE 

FACULTY  OF  DIVINITY 

IN 

HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 


BY 

GEORGE  F.  MOORE,  JAMES  H.  ROPES, 
KIRSOPP  LAKE 


(Itailfllllliiniil^ 


CAMBRIDGE 
HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON:  HUMPHREY  MILFORD 

OxwouD  University  Press 

1920 


V 


HARVARD  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

•^  (      .(IJL  Si"  13 

AN  ANSWER  TO         \^.,,„„,      „ 
JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 

BY  A  PURITAN  FRIEND 

Js(JJ^  FIRST  'PUBLISHED 
FROM  A  ^hCANVSCRIPT  OF  ^.T>.  1609 

EDITED  BY 

CHAMPLIN  BURRAGE 

SOMETIME  LIBRARIAN  OF  MANCHESTER  COLLEGE,  OXFORD 


CAMBRIDGE 
HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON :  HUMPHREY  MILFORD 

Oxford  University  Press 

1920 


COPYRIGHT,  1920 
HARVAED  UNIYERSITY  PRESS 


DEDICATED 

TO  THE  CHURCH  OF  ST.  ANDREW,  NORWICH 

AS  A  CONTRIBUTION  TO 

THE  HISTORY  OF  ITS  NOTABLE  PAST 


PREFACE 

§  I.  THE  MANUSCRIPT 

The  manuscript  of  which  the  complete  text  is  here  published  for 
the  first  time  is  catalogued  as  MS.  Jones  30,  in  the  Bodleian 
Library,  Oxford,  where  it  has  lain  for  over  two  hundred  years. 
The  book  is  a  neat  little  volume,  perfectly  preserved,  containing 
one  hundred  and  fifty-eight  written  pages,  and  is  bound  in  limp 
vellum  delicately  ornamented  with  gilt.  From  the  author's 
"  Advertisement  "  we  learn  that  this  is  not  the  original  manu- 
script, but  a  contemporary  copy  (containing  one  additional  main 
section),  evidently  made  for  the  author  before  the  Answer  was 
sent  to  John  Robinson  at  Leyden,  and  not  long  after  the  original 
composition.  The  transcript  is  anonymous  and  undated.  The 
copyist  wrote  an  unusually  fine,  clear  hand  for  the  period,  and 
executed  his  work  with  the  greatest  care.  Toward  the  end  the 
handwriting  is  much  finer  than  at  the  beginning.  The  author's 
prefatory  note,  which  he  styles  "An  Advertisement  of  the  An- 
swerer servinge  for  Introduction,"  is  in  his  own  hand.  He  has 
also  carefully  indicated  in  the  margin  which  sections  are  quoted 
from  Robinson,  and  which  are  his  answer,  has  added  one  or  two 
references,  and  corrected  the  spelling  of  a  few  words. 

The  author  gave  the  transcript  no  special  title  —  a  circum- 
stance which  suggests  that  it  was  not  intended  for  publication  — 
but  on  the  back  of  the  binding  he  wrote  a  few  words,  now  partly 
illegible.    They  are  probably: 

AN   ANSW[ER] 
TO   MR.    ROB- 
INSON MS. 

Inside  the  back  cover  the  author  also  wrote  the  following  instruc- 
tions, presumably  for  the  messenger  to  whom  he  entrusted  the 
manuscript,  "  This  booke  is  to  bee  sent  eyther  to  Readinge  im- 
mediately [i.e.,  direct]  or  by  way  of  London  by  Mr.  Thurlbie 
meanes  who  dwells  at  the  Black  Boy  in  Southwark." 


viii  PREFACE 

Other  contemporary  marginal  notes,  referring  to  several  pub- 
lications by  or  concerning  the  Brownists,  were  also  made  in  the 
transcript  by  a  third  person;  and,  apparently  at  a  somewhat 
later  f)eriod,  a  reader  has  changed  the  spelling  of  one  word.  With 
these  exceptions  the  document  seems  to  be  in  the  same  condi- 
tion today  as  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

§2.    ITS  HISTORY 

The  occasion  for  writing  the  Answer  is  explained  in  the  author's 
"  Advertisement."  After  the  removal  of  John  Robinson  and 
his  congregation  from  Amsterdam  to  Leyden  in  1609,  but  prob- 
ably not  long  after  that  event,  the  writer,  a  former  friend  of 
Robinson's,  appears  to  have  come  to  Amsterdam  and  there,  in 
conversation  with  Matthew  Slade,  to  have  "  bewayled  "  Rob- 

-  inson's  "  fallinge  of  from  the  Churche  of  England,"  expressing 
at  the  same  time  his  desire  to  "speake  with  him."  Slade  gave 
notice  of  this  to  Robinson,  who  wrote  to  his  old  friend,  and  "  pro- 

*- pounded  certayne  reasons  for  his  seperation."  The  friend  re- 
joined with  a  cordial  letter,  in  which  he  "  desyred  him  to  frame 
his  argument  logically  "  (i.e.  syllogistically),^  and  in  particular 
to  discuss  "  his  seperation  from  that  churche  or  parishe  of  St. 
Andrewes  in  Norwich  of  which  he  had  lately  beene  a  minister." 
"  Hereupon  he  wrote  his  objections,"  and  in  reply  the  anony- 
mous friend  framed  the  present  Answer,  in  which  the  text  of 

•  much  of  Robinson's  letter  was  incorporated.  The  note  quoted 
above,  written  on  the  inside  of  the  back  cover  of  the  volume, 
doubtless  means  that  this  copy  was  at  some  time  sent  to  Read- 
ing, perhaps  to  some  old  Cambridge  friend  there  beneficed  whose 
approval  the  author  desired. 

'  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  published  writings  of  John  Robinson  are  almost  en- 

i  tirely  lacking  in  forms  of  expression  which  would  suggest  that  he  had  had  a  uni- 

Fversity  education,  and  this  circumstance  has  raised  a  doubt  whether  he  could  have 

(,  been  a  Cambridge  graduate.    Our  manuscript  plainly  proves  that  he  understood, 

and  could  use,  syllogistic  argument,  while  the  following  citation  from  Thomas 

Helwys,  A  Short  Declaration  of  the  Mister y  of  Iniquity,  161 2,  no  doubt  explains 

why  Robinson  did  not  generally  employ  scholastic  methods  of  reasoning  in  his 

/books:  "It  were  to  be  wished,  and  you  have  often  bene  required,  to  lay  away 

I  your  schoole  tearmes  in  the  causes  of  God,  whereby  you  do  for  the  most  part  but 

/hide  the  truth,  and  blind  the  eies  of  the  simple  "  (page  138). 


\ 


PREFACE  IX 

Whoever  the  person  at  Reading  was  to  whom  the  manuscript 
was  first  sent  (doubtless  from  Holland),  it  may  well  have  come 
eventually  into  the  possession  of  Samuel  Fell  (i  584-1 649)/  dean 
of  Christ  Church  and  Lady  Margaret  professor  at  Oxford,  who 
was  rector  of  Sunningwell,^  near  Abingdon,  Berks,  after  Sept.  21, 
1625,  and  resided  there  from  1647  till  his  death  in  1649.  At  his^ 
death  the  manuscript  would  have  passed  into  the  Ubrary  of  his 
son.  Dr.  John  Fell  (1625-1686),  who  was  born  at  Sunningwell. 
Dr.  John  Fell  Ukewise  became  dean  of  Christ  Church,  and  finally 
bishop  of  Oxford.  It  is  known  that  at  Dr.  FelFs  death  some  of 
his  books  became  the  property  of  his  nephew  Henry  Jones,  like- 
wise rector  of  Sunningwell,  and  our  manuscript  was  probably  one 
of  these.  At  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  Hbrary  of 
Mr.  Jones  was  one  of  the  notable  EngUsh  private  collections. 
Among  his  manuscripts  this  transcript  was  catalogued  as  No.  52 
in  "  Catalogi  Librorum  Manuscriptorum  Angliae  et  Hiberniae  in 
Unum  Collecti,"  Oxford,  1697,  with  the  title,  "  An  Answer  to 
Robinson  the  Brownists  Arguments."  In  1707  Mr.  Jones  died, 
and  many  of  his  manuscripts,  including  this  one  (MS.  Jones  30), 
came  to  the  Bodleian  Library. 

§3.    THE  AUTHOR 

Unfortunately,  as  stated  above,  the  manuscript  is  anonymous, 
and  the  author  has  so  concealed  his  identity,  possibly  for  his  own 
protection,  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  he  can  ever  be  identified 
with  certainty.  The  handwriting  of  the  "  Advertisement " 
may,  however,  offer  a  clue.  From  the  work  itself  we  can  gather 
a  few  facts  concerning  him.  We  learn  that  he  was  a  friend  of 
Robinson,  and  that  he  was  a  logician  able  to  turn  about  as  he 
pleased  his  opponent's  rather  loosely  framed  syllogisms,  chiding 
him  at  times  that  a  university  man  should  reason  so  poorly.  We 
may  fairly  infer  that  our  author  was  an  Oxford  or  Cambridge 
graduate.  He  also  manifests  such  an  intimate  knowledge  of  St. 
Andrew's,  Norwich,  as  would  indicate  that  he  either  was  a  native 
of  that  city,  or  at  least  had  lived  there. 
The  author  had  evidently  been  in  active  service  as  a  minister 

^  See  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography  for  the  lives  of  Samuel  Fell,  John 
Fell,  and  Henry  Jones.  ^  Sunningwell  is  about  thirty  miles  from  Reading. 


X  PREFACE 

in  the  Church  of  England,  was  of  Puritan  tendencies,  and,  like 
Robinson,  had  been  compelled  to  stop  preaching  because  he  had 
not  fully  conformed  in  rituaUstic  practices: 

"  For  you  &  I  &  others,  because  we  could  not  obserue  all  other  thinges 
required,  were  put  from  preaching  as  from  a  specyall  parte  of  our  ministerye, 
therebye  to  compell  vs  to  the  other  thinges,  which  surelie  they  would  not 
haue  done,  yf  our  ministerye  had  stood  in  those  thinges  onelye  wherein  you 
place  it." ' 

We  do  not  know  when  the  author  was  suspended,  or  whether 
he  afterward  submitted  and  subscribed,  but  from  orfe  or  two  pas- 
sages we  may  infer  that,  even  if  he  did  so  about  1606,  he  was 
ultimately  obUged  to  leave  England;  that  he  first  came  to  Am- 
sterdam ^  not  long  after  Robinson  had  departed  for  Leyden; 
that  later  he  returned  to  England  for  a  brief  visit; '  and  that 
when  he  wrote  the  Answer,  he  was  once  more  in  Holland  and 
probably  in  Amsterdam.*  This  comprises  virtually  all  the  in- 
formation concerning  the  author's  life  to  be  gleaned  from  the 
manuscript.  In  considering  the  names  of  some  early  opponents 
of  the  Brownists  the  following  passage  may  be  cited  from  John 
Robinson's  ''  Ivstification  of  Separation,"  published  in  16 10: 

The  next  thing  I  observe  is  how  vauntingly  you  [Richard  Bernard]  bring* 
as  chalengers  into  the  lists,  Mr.  Gyshop,  Mr.  [William]  Bradshaw,  D.  Alli- 
son, and  other  vn-named  Ministers,  all  which  you  say  are  vnanswered  by 
vs.  And  no  marveil,  for  sundry  of  their  writings  never  came  to  our  hands. 
.  .  .  Yet  are  theyr  books  and  .  .  .  shalbe  answered  in  particular,  as  they 
come  to  our  hands  and  are  thought  worthy  answering;  though  in  truth  it 
were  no  hard  thing  for  our  adversaries  to  oppresse  us  with  the  multitude  of 
books,  considering  both  how  few,  and  how  feeble,  we  are  in  comparison  (be- 
sides other  outward  difificultyes).     (Page  8.) 

This  shows  that  before  Robinson  published  his  book,  various 
writings  had  been  sent  to  the  Brownist  leaders  by  their  oppo- 
nents, some  of  which  did  not  reach  their  intended  destination. 
Among  these  lost  controversial  documents  may  have  been  the 
original  of  our  transcript. 

Among  other  opponents  of  the  Brownists  Joseph  Hall,  Henry 
Jacob,  Robert  Parker,  and  William  Ames  deserve  mention.  A 
good  idea  of  the  author's  argumentative  style,  of  his  ability  as 
a  controversialist,  and  of  his  friendly  attitude  toward  Robinson, 
may  be  gathered  from  the  tract  here  printed. 

'  Page  55.  2  Page  2.  ^  p^gg  3.  *  Page  3. 


PREFACE  xi 

§4.   DATE 

Though  the  manuscript  is  undated  as  well  as  anonymous,  we 
can  be  almost  certain  that  the  Answer  was  composed,  and  the 
transcript  made,  in  1609.  (i)  The  Answer  was  written  not  long 
after  Robinson  had  removed  from  Amsterdam  to  Leyden.  ^ 
(2)  The  latest  notes  in  the  margins  of  the  transcript  appear  to 
have  been  added  shortly  after  John  Smyth,  the  Se-baptist,  was 
ejected  from  his  congregation  in  Amsterdam. ^  Now  Robinson 
arrived  in  Leyden  about  April  21  (O.  S.),  or  May  i  (N.  S.),  1609, 
and  Smyth  was  cast  out  of  his  church  some  time  before  March  12, 
1610  (N.  S.). 

§5.   HISTORICAL  IMPORTANCE 

I.  The  manuscript  definitely  states  that  before  his  separation, 
John  Robinson  lived  in  Norwich,  not  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Norwich,  nor  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Great  Yarmouth,  as  has 
often  been  afl&rmed.  From  it  and  other  data  we  can  also  deter- 
mine the  period  of  Robinson's  residence  at  Norwich  as  chiefly 
lying  between  1604  and  1607. 

2.  It  shows  that  for  some  time  Robinson  was  a  minister  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  furnishes  us  with  what  appears  to  be 
the  only  extant  reference  to  the  particular  church  (St.  Andrew's,  • 
Norwich)  in  which  he  officiated  before  he  became  a  separatist. 

3.  It  tells  us  that  at  least  two  of  Robinson's  children  were 
baptized  in  Norwich,  in  the  church  of  the  parish  in  which  his 
house  was  situated,  but  that  he  did  not  live  in  St.  Andrew's  parish, 
and  never  was  a  member  of  St.  Andrew's,  though  "  sometimes  " 
a  minister  there. 

4.  It  provides  us  with  several  extended  citations  from  an 
otherwise  unknown  controversial  writing  of  Robinson's,  citations 
which  probably  formed  the  major  part  of  his  argument. 

5.  It  gives  the  only  extant  evidence  in  Robinson's  own  words 
for  a  statement  published  by  John  Bastwick  in  1646  ^  to  the 

'  The  author's  "  Advertisement,"  page  2;  see  also  page  79,  where  Robinson's 
congregation  is  spoken  of  as  being  at  Leyden. 

2  This  is  indicated  by  a  marginal  note;  see  page  77. 

2  In  The  utter  Routing  of  the  whole  Army  of  all  the  Independents  6*  Sectaries , 
London,  1646  ("  The  Antiloquie  "),  sig.  h. 


Xll 


PREFACE 


effect  that  Robinson's  withdrawal  from  the  Church  of  England 
was  not  entirely  voluntary,  but  in  some  measure  enforced. 

6.  It  gives  the  only  direct  evidence  still  in  existence  that  Rob- 
inson was  acquainted  with,  and  made  use  of,  syllogistic,  or  scholas- 
tic, methods  of  reasoning,  such  as  prevailed  among  university 
men  in  his  time. 

7.  It  throws  an  interesting  light  on  the  controversy  which 
took  place  in  161 8  between  Robinson  and  John  Yates,  minister 
since  161 6  of  St.  Andrew's  Church,  Norwich,  and  shows  how 
naturally  such  a  controversy  arose.  It  suggests,  too,  that  Mr. 
Yates  was  only  carrying  on  a  written  discussion  with  Robinson 
concerning  laymen's  use  of  "  prophecy,"  in  which  William  Euring 
acted  as  messenger;  and  that  the  expression  Mr.  Yates's  "  Mo- 
nopolie"  was  not  the  title  of  a  printed  book  by  Yates,  as  Dr. 
Dexter  seems  to  have  thought,  or  even  the  title  of  Yates's  man- 
uscript, but  rather  a  name  which  Robinson  himself  appUed  to 
the  circumscribed  outlook  of  his  opponent's  argument. 

8.  It  presents  an  illustration  of  a  type  of  Congregationalism 
vv- practised  within  the  Church  of  England  before  the  time  of 

Robert  Browne  and  Robert  Harrison.  Such  churches  as  St. 
Peter  Mancroft  and  St.  Andrew's,  Norwich,  purchased  the 
patronage  and  so  obtained  the  right  to  elect  their  own  ministers. 
Browne  probably  derived  many  of  his  ideas  on  Congregational 
church  polity  from  study  and  criticism  of  these  two  churches 
during  his  sojourn  in  Norwich.  In  Browne's  time  John  More  was 
the  incumbent  of  St.  Andrew's  and  it  is  to  him  that  Browne 
undoubtedly  refers  in  "  A  Trve  and  Short  Declaration,"  where 
he  mentions  Mr.  More,  a  Puritan  minister. 

A  fuller  discussion  of  these  and  other  details  of  Puritan  history 
upon  which  this  Answer  to  Robinson  bears  will  be  found  in  the 
-  present  editor's  pamphlet.  New  Facts  concerning  John  Robinson, 
Pastor  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers,  Oxford,  at  the  University  Press, 
1910.  For  permission  to  use  in  the  present  volume  material 
already  printed  in  the  former  publication  and  for  the  use  of  the 
plate  appearing  as  frontispiece  the  editor  would  make  grateful 
acknowledgment  to  Mr.  Humphrey  Milford  of  the  Oxford 
University  Press. 


PREFACE  xiii 

9.  Since  the  publication  of  New  Facts  concerning  John  Robinson, 
Mr.  F.  W.  Haldenstein,  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  has  brought  to 
light  the  following  interesting  entry  in  the  accounts  of  the  Great 
Hospital,  Norwich,  for  1601/2: 

Item  to  Mr  John  Robynson  for  preachinge  iiii  sermons  xxx^  &  to  Mr 
Mayor,  Shreve  &  certain  other  persons  of  the  saide  Bishops  guifte  x^  in  all 
xl« 

This  helps  us  to  trace  the  early  life  of  John  Robinson  of 
Leyden  a  little  more  definitely.  It  would  now  appear  that  in 
1601/2  he  was  either  settled  in  Norwich,  or  had  begun  to  visit  x 
that  city,  as  a  Hospital  and  perhaps  City  preacher.  Robinson 
was,  as  we  know,  ordained  in  or  before  the  year  1602.  His  mar- 
riage took  place  on  February  15,  1603/4,  and  his  work  in  con- 
nection with  St.  Andrew's,  Norwich,  began  probably  about  that 
time. 


•<;>^^ 


\r' 


\A 


i.'      Irt 


1-4,         • 


i 
-5       • 


:A 


^5    J. 


.^'j: 


27     ►. 


1      I    t     '■, 


'     -6^ 


?-   'C   *t  %N  a 


XJ 


t  .1 


'if;* 


•  ^       i 


a. 


X 


<  '5 


O     S 


ft; 


NOTE 

The  main  text  of  the  manuscript  was  written  by  the  copyist,  who  uses 
the  secretarial  hand  of  the  period,  distinguishing  by  Roman  script 
marginal  headings,  quotations  from  the  Bible,  and  occasionally  other 
words.    In  the  printed  text  this  use  of  Roman  script  is  not  indicated. 

The  quotations  from  Robinson,  as  well  as  certain  parts  of  sentences 
in  the  Answer,  are  underlined  in  the  manuscript,  and  all  these  are  here 
printed  in  italics. 

The  "Advertisement  of  the  Answerer"  prefixed  to  the  Answer  is  in 
the  handwriting  of  the  author.  He  has  also  made  some  notes  in  the 
margin  of  the  Answer,  which  in  the  printed  text  are  indicated  by  an 
asterisk  (*). 

A  third  person  has  also  made  notes  in  the  margin.  These  are  here 
distinguished  by  square  brackets  ([  ]). 

In  some  instances  it  is  not  possible  to  tell  with  certainty  whether 
a  note  is  due  to  the  author  or  to  the  third  person.  These  are  desig- 
nated by  two  asterisks  (**). 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  small  corrections,  the  only  additions  to 
the  manuscript  were  made  in  the  margin. 

It  has  not  been  attempted  to  present  a  diplomatically  exact  edition 
of  the  manuscript  in  all  particulars.  The  spelling  of  the  original  has 
been  preserved,  but,  in  the  interest  of  modern  readers,  the  punctuation 
and  use  of  capitals  have  been  modified,  and  the  abbreviations  gener- 
ally extended. 


An  advertisement  of  the  answerer 
servinge  for  introduction 

Mr  Robinson  sometimes  a  preacher  in  Norwich  fell  to  Brown- 
isme  &  became  a  pastor  to  those  of  the  seperation  at  Leyden. 
I  bewayled  to  Mr  Slade  of  Amsterdam  this  his  fallinge  of  from 
the  Churche  of  England,  wishinge  that  I  mighte  speake  with  him. 
Vppon  notice  hereof  Mr  Robinson  wrote  to  me  &  propounded 
certayne  reasons  for  his  seperation.  I  returned  a  letter  praying 
him  to  interpret  my  speeche  to  Mr  Slade,  not  as  a  chalenge  but 
a  fruit  of  my  auncient  love  to  him,  confessed  my  greife  for  his 
rupture  from  the  churche,  desyred  him  to  frame  his  argument 
logically,  &  that  (because  the  woorde  churche  is  of  sondry  signifi- 
cations) one  question  myghte  bee  of  his  seperation  from  that 
churche  or  parishe  of  St  Andrewes  in  Norwich  of  which  he  had 
lately  beene  a  minister.  Herevppon  he  wrote  his  obiections,  &  I 
(after  a  time)  myne  answeare,  &  sent  it  to  him  written  [?]  to- 
geather  with  his  reply  as  foUowes. 


Right  welcome  was  your  letter  vnto  me  {beloved  Sir)  both  for   Robinson 
your  owne  sake  b"  for  the  truthes  into  which  it  maketh  so  open  an 
entrie  for  enquiry e.    The  time  you  tooke  for  answer e  needes  (as 
you  see)  none  excuse  with  me,  which  I  doe  instifie,  by  vseyng  far 
greater  libertie  my  self,  though  vpon  other  occasion./ 

Sir,  as  I  had  noe  oportunitie  to  answere  your  letters  till  my  re-  Answer 
turne  out  of  England,  soe  haue  I  mett  with  some  extraordinary e 
businesses  since  my  returne,  which  haue  made  my  answere  to 
you  more  slowe  then  had  beene  fitte,  of  which  you  will  excuse 
me,  seeyng  youre  self  tooke  not  much  lesse  tjone  for  answere  to 
a  farre  shorter  letter  of  myne./ 


And  for  the  mencion  you  made  of  me  to  youre  freinde,  I  doe    Robinson 

interpret  it  even  as  you  desyre  I  should,  onelye  intimatyng,  that 

my  forsaking  the  church  of  England  was  noe  rupture  {as  you 

speake)  but  an  inforced  departure,  vpon  the  most  advised  deliber- 

acions  I  could  possiblye  take,  eyther  with  the  Lord,  by  humblyng 

my  self  before  him,  or  with  men,  for  whose  advice  I  spared  neyther 

cost  nor  paines,  but  sought  out  in  everye  place  the  most  sincere 

and  iudicious  in  the  land  for  resolucyon  to  the  contrary e,  as  both 

God  &°  men  can  witnes  with  me,  but  with  what  effect  the  yssue 

manifesteth,  and  soe  I  passe  to  the  clearyng  of  the  state  of  the 

question./ 

Whether  you  were  dryven  out  by  compulsion  or  by  conceyte  Answer 
therof  shall  appeare  vpon  the  tryall  of  youre  motyues,  yet  might 
your  departure  be  called  a  rupture,  seeyng  you  brake  those  bondes 
of  socyetye  with  which  the  church  sought  to  haue  conteyned 
you;  even  he  that  is  dryven  thereto  male  make  a  rupture. 
That  you  sought  conference  I  haue  heard,  but  that  you  sought 
resolucyon  to  the  contrarye  of  that  you  foUowe,  noe  man  can 
witnes,  for  whoe  knowes  your  hearte  ?  And  yf  your  spirit  had 
beene  soe  humble  as  might  haue  become  your  age,  learning,  or 
anye  grace  you  haue  receyued,  the  iudgment  of  those  most  sin- 
cere and  iudicious  men  would  haue  restreyned  you,  for  whoe  are 
you,  that  God  should  be  thought  to  open  vnto  you  such  a  pointe 


4  AN  ANSWER  TO 

hidden  from  soe  sincere  and  iudicyous  men  as  you  consulted  and 
then  cast  of  ?/ 

And  what  though  you  bestowed  manie  prayers  vpon  your  self 
after  your  hearte  had  admitted  this  passion,  partiallitye,  and 
preiudice,  might  it  not  be  iust  with  God  to  answere  you  with 
your  owne  delusions,  seyng  you  durst  call  into  questyon  the 
truth  of  his  worship  and  presence  in  those  Churches  in  which 
you  had  eyther  beheld  the  beautie  thereof  or  dissembled  ?/ 
When  we  settle  not  in  a  manifest  truthe  but  praye  still  for  reso- 
lucyons,  the  Lord  male  iustlye  disgrace  vs  and  oure  prayers 
wherein  we  seeme  to  beseech  him  to  change  himself./ 
Oure  prayers  sometymes  are  answered,  as  was  Ahimaas'  sute  to 
Joab,  with  what  we  would  haue,  and  not  with  what  is  most  con- 
venient. Otherwise,  of  those  that  are  devout,  none  should  erre 
in  iudgment,  for  all  praye  for  direction./ 


*The  proper  forme 
gives  existence  as 
well  as  essence. 
Zabarella:  De 
Constitutione 
ludividui,  cap.  5.' 


Robinson  The  sundrie  deceptions  of  the  word  Church  by  you  laid  downe  I 
acknowledg  for  good  and  to  he  found  in  the  scriptures,  hut  not 
them  alone,  for  hesides  these  by  you  named,  the  churche  is  some- 
tymes taken  indefinitelye  for  manye,  or  all  particuler  Churches, 
because  manye  or  all  are  but  one  in  nature,  forme,  definition, 
essentiall  partes,  &  propertyes,  though  not  in  existence,*  for  soe 
they  are  as  manye  Churches,  as  they  are  particuler  assemhlyes 
ecclesiasticall,  &*  spirituall  societyes,  and  in  this  sence  Paule 
speaketh  i.  Cor.  12.  28,  in  which  report  also  in  another  place 
he  sayth.  There  is  one  fayth  &*  one  baptisme,  Eph.  4.  j,  and 
this  acception  of  the  word  Church  wilhe  of  good  vse  for  the  ques- 
tion in  hand./ 

Answer  Your  acception  of  the  word  Church  allso  indefinitelie,  or  rather 
coUectiuelye,  for  all  or  manie  Churches  as  beyng  of  one  nature, 
&c.,  I  willinglye  admitte,  but  your  proof e  thereof  out  of  the  i .  Cor. 
12.  28  I  refuse,  for  yf  by  Church  there  is  meante  all  particuler 
Churches,  then  all  particuler  Churches  must  be  capeable  of  the 

'  Jacobus  Zabarella  was  an  Italian  philosopher,  born  at  Padua  September  5, 1533, 
died  October,  1589.  He  published  various  works,  among  which  may  be  noted: 
Derebusnaturalibus  libriXXX,isg4;  Logica,  isgj;  De  anima,  1606.  An  account 
of  his  life  and  works  may  be  found  in  Gerolamo  Boccardo,  Niwva  enciclopedia 
Ilaliana  (6th  ed.),  Vol.  XXIII,  Torino,  1888. 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  S 

endowmentes  there  mencioned  as  ordeyned  to  the  Church  there 
spoken  of,  namelye  Apostles,  evangelists,  &  doers  of  miracles, 
seeinge  these  are  there  said  to  be  ordeyned  of  God  to  the  Churche 
there  spoken  of./ 

The  instance  you  propound  for  the  specyall  subiect  of  the  questyon  Robinson 
in  hand  I  agree  to,  which  is  St  Andrewes  in  Norwich,  whereof 
indeed  I  was  sometymes  a  minister  {as  you  saie),  hut  neuer  anie 
member,  having  my  house  standyng  {which  is  the  infallible  de- 
terminacion  of  members)  within  another  parish,  and  my  children 
baptized  there,  which  was  and  is  one  parte  of  the  confusion  of 
that  Church  from  which  I  am  seperated./ 

If  you  were  a  minister  of  St  Andrewes  parish,  it  is  as  much  as  I  Answer 
said.  Yf  you  were  not  a  member  thereof,  you  might  haue  beene. 
Habitacyon  in  a  parish  is  not  an  infallible  argument  of  a  member 
of  the  congregacyon  symplye,  but  rather  a  probable  and  ordi- 
narye  one,  and  in  the  peaceable  state  of  Churches  a  convenient 
waie.  Nowe  yf  this,  that  beyng  minister  in  one  parish  you  make 
your  self  a  member  of  another,  was  confusion,  you  that  made  this 
fault  ought  to  be  blamed  for  it./ 

Onelye  I  must  craue  leaue  to  denie  that  which  you  take  for  Robinson 
graunted,  wherein  indeed  a  greate  parte  of  the  questyon  lyeth,  df 
that  is,  that  St  Andrewes  Church  is  in  it  self  a  distinct  &"  entyer 
Church  or  ecclesiasticall  pollicye  {which  all  true  Churches  are), 
but  it  is  on  the  contrarye  a  member  of  a  diocesan,  provinceall,  &" 
nationall  church,  and  that  in  the  verye  frame  and  constitution  of 
it  vnder  the  diocesan,  provinceall,  and  nationall  bishops  &  other 
officers,  which  I  am  sure  you  will  not  denie.  Wherevpon,  I  doe 
ground  my  first  argument  this. 

I  said  not  that  St  Andrewes  Church  is  in  it  self  an  entyer  church  Answer 
or  ecclesiasticall  pollicye,  but  that  it  is  a  distincte  and  particuler 
Church,  &c.,  and  he  that  confoundes  distinct  &  (in  your  sense) 
entyer  &  makes  a  particuler  Church  and  ecclesiasticall  polHcye  to 
be  all  one,  forgettes  to  distinguish,  &  vnderstands  not  himself./ 
And  when  you  add  that  I  will  not  denie  St  Andrewes  to  be  a 
member  of  a  diocesan  Church,  in  that  it  is  vnder  a  diocesan 
Bishop,  you  doe  with  one  breath  challeng  me  to  haue  taken  for 


6  AN  ANSWER  TO 

granted  that  the  contrarye  whereof  you  sale  I  will  not  denye. 
And  thus  I  come  to  the  question,  which  is  this/. 
St  Andrewes  parish  in  Norwich  is  a  trewe  church  of  Christe,  with 
which  a  Christian  man  male  lawfullye  comunicate  in  the  worship 
of  God./    Against  which  assertion  of  myne  you  thus  dispute./ 

Robinson         Noe  man  male  comunicate  with,  or  he  a  member  of,  a  false 
Argument  i.         Church;   hut  every e  memher  of  St  Andrewes  comunicates  with, 

and  is  a  memher  of,  a  false  Churche./ 

Ergo,  noe  man  maie  he  a  memher  of  St  Andrewes  Church  or 

comunicate  therewith  in  the  worship  of  God./ 

The  first  proposition  is  vndenyable./ 
Answer  The  first  proposition  is  not  simplye  true,  and  therefore  not 
vndenyable,  for  you  make  it  all  one  to  comunicate  with,  and  to 
be  a  member  of,  a  Church,  (as  your  disiunctiue,  or,  doth  mani- 
fest), which  is  absurd  and  vntrue,  in  as  much  as  not  everye 
comunicating  doth  make  one  to  be  a  member  of  the  Church.  An 
heathen  man  maie  communicate  with  the  Church  in  hearyng  of 
[i.  Cor.  14. 24.]  the  word  preached  and  yet  is  not  therebye  a  member  of  the 
Church./ 

Secondlye,  when  you  sale  one  maie  not  comunicate  with  a  false 
church,  it  is  not  simpUe  true,  although  some  comunion  with  a 
false  Church  is  vnlawfuU,  yet  not  everye  comunion  therewith. 
The  Apostles  and  Christians  did  lawfullye  comunicate  in  some 
thinges  with  the  Jewish  Sinogogue,  even  after  it  became  a  false 
Church  reiectyng  the  Messiah,  as  in  circumcision,  purification, 
absteyning  from  blood,  &  strangled,  resortyng  to  the  Temple, 
&c.,  Act.  21.  24;  16.  3.  Your  first  proposition,  therefore,  so 
much  boasted  of,  is  not  sound,  but  let  vs  trie  the  second./ 

Robinson  The  second  proposicion  is  thus  proued. 

That  everye  member  in  St  Andrewes  Churche  is  a  memher  of,  b' 
comunicates  with  a  nationall,  provinceall,  and  diocesan  Church, 
both  mediatelye  vnder  nationall,  provinceall,  6*  diocesan  Churche 
governnours  in  their  correspondent  government,  and  immediatlye 
in  standyng  a  member  of  that  particuler  Church,  which  is  a 
memher  of  a  diocesan,  provinceall,  ^  nationall  Church,  &•  so, 
heyng  a  memher  of  the  memher,  must  needes  be  a  member  of  the 
whole,  cannot  be  denyed./ 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


Thus  you  reason,  everye  member  of  St  Andrewes  is  a  member 
of  a  diocesan,  or  provinceall  Churche,  therefore  of  a  false  Church./ 
To  make  good  this  argument  you  haue  two  thinges  to  proue, 
first  that  everye  member  of  St  Andrewes  is  a  member  of  a 
provinceall  Church;  secondlye,  that  a  provinceall  Church  is  a 
false  Church./ 

The  first  you  proue  thus.  —  He  that  is  both  mediately  and  imedi- 
atelie  vnder  a  provinceall  Churche  governoure  is  a  member  of  a 
provinceall  churche./ 

But  soe  is  everye  member  of  St  Andrewes  parishe./ 
I  answere,  that  in  the  same  sense  in  which  wee  doe  acknowledge 
a  provinceall  Church,  in  the  same  he  is  a  member  of  it;  that  is, 
not  simpUe  nor  properUe,  as  the  name  of  Church  importeth,  one 
onelye  congregacyon  combyned  in  the  worship  of  God.  But  lett 
vs  heare  howe  you  can  proue  that  a  provinceall  Church  is  not  a 
true  Church,  takeyng  leaue  first  to  sett  downe  in  what  sense  all 
the  Churches  of  a  province  male  be  called  one  Churche,  that  yf 
you  take  covert  vnder  the  ambiguitye  of  phrases,  we  male  beate 
you  thence./ 

Manye  particuler  Churches  in  a  province  maye  possibl[i]e  drawe 
into  one  generall  assembUe,  and  then  they  are  made  properlie 
one  Church,  for  that  tyme. 

Secondlie,  manie  particuler  Churches  male  send  their  deputyes 
&  comittyees  to  one  assembUe  in  their  names,  and  this  assemblie 
out  of  a  province  is  a  provinceall  representatiue  churche,  as  Solo- 
mon's assembUe,  i.  King.  8,  is  caUed  the  congregacyon  of  all 
IsraeU,  because  it  was  drawen  out  of  all  the  tribes  to  the  dedi- 
cacyon  of  the  temple./ 

Thirdlye,  manie  particuler  Churches  combyning  in  one  forme  of 
hoUe  profession  &  vnder  one  manner  of  regiment,  male  be  called 
one  in  respect  of  that  bond  of  their  vnyon,  in  such  sense  as  wee 
call  the  manye  churches  of  seuerall  kingdomes  one  Churche,  as 
of  England,  Scotland,  Fraunce,  or  the  Belgian  Churche,  which 
sense  is  not  farre  from  that  which  you  graunted  and  is  found  in 
the  scripture,  as  where  the  Apostle  saith,  Eph.  3.  21,  To  whome 
be  praise  in  the  Churche  throughe  all  generations.  He  meanes, 
in  the  Churches  which  he  names  in  the  singuler  number,  one 
Churche,  for  that  they  were  in  theire  essencyall  forme  but  one, 


Answer 


[One  in  number] 


[One  in  analogic] 


[One  in  kinde  &  in 
consent.] 
*Unum  dicitur 
quattuor  modis; 
analogia,  genere, 
specie,  numero. 
Aristotelis  caput 
12.  lib.  5  Metaph. 


8 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


as  your  Mr  Answoorth  sayes  that  all  particular  churches  are 

essentiallie  but  one. 

So  then,  those  Churches  which  properlye  &  simplye  are  not  one 

but  manye,  maie  yett  in  some  sense  be  one,  as  all  Christians  are 

in  some  sense  one,  and  all  men  are  in  some  sense  but  one  man, 

that  is  one  kinde  of  men./ 

Now  let  vs  heare  howe  you  will  proue  a  provinceall  Church  a 

false  Churche./ 

Robinson  First,  that  a  particuler  Church  is  the  onelie  true  spirituall 
pollecye  {&"  so  neyther  diocesan,  provinceall,  nor  nationall 
Churche) ,  apearethe  thus,  where  there  were  in  the  newe  Testament 
in  one  countrie  more  then  one  particuler  assemblie,  there  the 
scripture  speakes  of  them  as  of  so  manie  distincte  b"  entyre 
Churches,  Revel,  i.  ii;  Gal.  i.  2,  And  so  ludea,  which  vnder  the 
ould  Testament  was  but  all  one  Church  or  rather  but  one  parte  of 
a  Church  haveing  one  highe  preist,  one  Temple,  one  altar,  one 
sacrifice,  hath  in  the  newe  Testament  sundrie  Churches  in  it, 
Actes  g.  jj;  Gal.  i.  21./ 

Answer  If  by  pollecye  you  meane  the  spirituall  bodye  or  incorporacyon  of 
those  which  are  ioyned  in  holye  profession,  then  Church  and 
spirituall  pollecye  is  all  one.  Yf  you  meane  by  pollecye  the  forme 
of  government  which  this  socyetye  embrace th,  then  spirituall 
pollecye  &  Church  differ,  as  much  as  a  comonwealth  and  the 
lawes  of  it,  which  are  distinct  thinges,  yett  you  confound  them./ 
If,  then,  you  will  not  mock  vs  with  ambiguitye  of  wordes,  you 
must  by  spirituall  pollecye  (in  this  argument)  meane  noe  more 
then  is  meant  by  Church,  and  then  your  argument  is  this./ 

A  particuler  Church  or  congregacion  is  the  onelie  true  Church. 
Ergo,  a  provinceall  Church  {conteyning  manie  particulers)  is  a 
false  Church./ 

Howe  proue  you  that  a  particuler  Church  is  the  onelie  true 
Church  ?  Because  (forsoothe)  the  scripture  still  speakes  of  par- 
ticuler Churches,  as  to  the  7  churches  of  Asia,  not  to  the  Church  of 
Asia,  againe  the  Churches  of  Galatia,  the  Churches  of  ludea,  not 
one  Church  as  vnder  the  lawe,  but  manie  Churches.  Excellent. 
And  were  these  particuler  Churches,  therefore,  true  Churches 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  9 

because  theye  were  particuler  Churches  ?  or  because  they  em- 
braced the  true  worship  of  God  ?  Marke  what  you  saie  before 
you  answere  me,  for  yf  you  assigne  this  particularitie  to  be  the 
cause,  then  noe  particuler  Church  can  be  a  false  Churche.  Yf 
you  dare  not  afhrme  this  particularitie  of  their  beyng,  or  entyrenes 
of  pollecye,  to  be  that  which  made  them  to  be  true  Churches, 
then  haue  you  plaid  the  sophister  in  disputyng,  a  non  causa,  pro  [Et  ab  accidenti] 
causa,  as  one  should  saie :  A  particuler  Christyan  is  a  true  mem- 
ber of  Christes  bodye,  therefore  a  Christyan  congregacyon  is  not 
a  member  of  Christes  bodye./ 

And  yf  you  will  argue  well  from  the  title  of  Church  conferred 
vpon  everye  of  the  particuler  assemblyes,  all  you  can  inferre  is 
this:  A  particuler  assemblie  alone  is  properlie  one  Church, 
therefore  a  provinceall  Churche  consistyng  of  manie  is  not 
properlie  one  Churche,  but  after  a  sorte,  which  to  the  poynte  of 
the  truthe  or  falshood  of  a  Churche  is  neyther  too  not  froo./ 
Secondlye,  your  proofes  fayle  you,  for  they  doe  not  showe  that 
the  name  of  Church  is  gyven  onelie  to  a  particuler  congregacyon 
but  that  is  often  gyven  thereto,  for  the  name  is  also  vsed  in  the 
singuler  number  for  all  particuler  Churches  that  shalbe,  Eph.  3. 
21,  and  for  the  vniuersall  which  consistes  of  all  the  particulers, 
Math.  16. 18./ 

Whence  I  thus  inverte,  Yf  all  the  particuler  Churches  of  all 
places  and  tymes  are  called  and  are  one  Church  in  some  respecte, 
and  yf  the  vniuersall  comprehendyng  all  particulers  is  yet  in  some 
sense  called  one  and  is  but  one,  then  all  the  Churches  of  one  na- 
tion, province,  or  dioces  maie  be,  &  male  be  called,  in  some  sense 
one  nationall,  provinceall,  &  diocesan  Church./ 
Thirdlie,  I  answere  that  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the  seauen 
churches  of  Asia,  or  Church  of  Jerusalem  &  the  like,  was  one 
onelie  congregacyon  (of  which  we  shall  hereafter  consider  further), 
but  it  maie  be  thought  that,  beyng  vnder  one  government  (though 
devided  into  seuerall  Assemblies),  they  are  called  the  Churche 
of  such  or  such  a  cittie,  as  nowe  in  the  Dutch  churche  of  Amster- 
dam, Leyden,  and  that  of  Geneva,  &c./ 

Fourthhe,  that  which  you  conceite  and  would  insinuate  by  the 
waie  in  the  darke  tearmes  of  spirituall  pollecye,  namelie  that  the 
particuler  Churches  had  all  ecclesiasticall  regiment  entire  within 


lO 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


*Your  owne  Mr 
Clifton  maintaines 
that  in  matter  & 
essential  forme  the 
Churches  vnder 
the  olde  Testa- 
ment &  newe  are 
alike.    Plea  for 
Infants,  page  67. 

Robinson 
2.  Reason. 


them  selues,  and  therefore  were  not  diocesan  Churches,  is 
vtterlie  confuted  by  the  places  you  alleadge.  For  were  not  all 
the  Churches  of  ludea  vnder  the  Apostles'  Jurisdiction  ?  and  so 
of  Asia,  as  those  of  Creta,  vnder  Titus  his  superintendencye  ? 
Wherefore,  yf  subiection  to  a  provinceall  governour  doe  make  a 
provinceall  Church  (as  you  haue  assumed),  then  were  the 
Churches  of  ludea  a  provinceall  Churche  &  the  Churches  of 
Creta./ 

So  I  maie  thus  invert  this  argument  vpon  you.  The  Churches  of 
Creta  (as  beyng  vnder  a  provinceall  governoure)  were  one 
provinceall  Church. 

But  the  Churches  of  Creta  were  a  true  Church. 
Therefore  some  provinceall  Church  is  a  true  Churche./ 
As  touching  that  you  admit  [?]  of  ludea  that  it  was  but  one,  or 
piece  of  one,  particular  Churche  vnder  the  Lawe,  as  it  is  in  some 
sense  true,  in  as  much  as  they  all  depended  on  one  temple,  preist, 
&c.,  so  is  it  in  some  other  respect  most  false,  for  Judea  was  de- 
vided  into  sundrye  particuler  and  seuerall  sinogogues,  which 
were  true  particuler  Churches,  and  manye,  not  one,  and  of  them 
Christe  said.  Tell  the  Church,  for  this  commaundement  was  gynen 
to  be  vsed  when  Christ  deliuered  it,  when  the  sinogogues  stood./ 
Out  of  which  one  maie  thus  dispute,  Yf  the  true  visible  Churches 
of  the  lewes,  beyng  manye,  were  yet  in  some  respecte  but  one 
nationall  Church,  then  maie  it  agree  to  the  nature  of  a  true 
Churche  that  manye  particuler  Churches  be  in  some  respect  one 
nationall  Churche,  but  soe  it  was  to  the  lewes./  Ergo. 
The  antecedent  cannot  be  denied;  the  consequent  standes  good, 
inasmuch  as  whatsoeuer  is  simplye  and  in  the  kinde  thereof 
essencyall  to  the  beyng  of  a  true  Church  of  God  stands  allwaies 
vnalterable  in  the  middest  of  all  other  changes.  Let  vs  nowe 
come  to  your  second  reason  brought  to  proue  that  a  provinceall 
Church  is  a  false  Churche./ 

There  is  one  bodye  or  Church,  that  is  one  kinde  of  Church, 
Eph.  4.  4,  where,  yf  both  particuler  and  diocesan  &  provinceall 
6*  nationall  Churches  were  true  Churches,  there  were  diuers 
kindes  of  Churches,  one  comprehending  another  vnder  it./ 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  II 

First,  you  corrupt  the  text  with  a  false  glosse  and  offer  that  vnto  Answer 
vs  for  the  word  of  God,  for  the  one  bodye  there  spoken  of  is  the 
vniuersall  Church,  which  is  the  misticall  bodye  of  Christe,  con- 
sistyng  of  and  conteyning  all  and  onelie  the  elect  of  God,  quickned 
by  that  one  spiritt  there  mencioned,  and  this  is  but  one  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  the  world.  This  you  perverte  when  you 
drawe  it  to  a  particuler  Church,  and  then  to  helpe  your  self 
interpret  one,  by  one  kinde,  by  kinde  also  vnderstandyng  one  out- 
ward forme  of  regiment,  wherefore  this  place  rightlye  interpreted 
quites  it  self  of  your  handes,  nor  onelie  so,  but  is  dyrectUe  against 
your  collection,  for  yf  by  one  bodye  we  vnderstand  the  vniuersall 
Church  of  Christe  which  is  but  one,  of  which  the  particuler 
Churches  (as  touching  the  sincere  partes  therof)  are  members, 
then  doth  it  followe  that  there  are  diuers  kindes  of  Churches,  one 
comprehending  another,  in  as  much  as  there  is  one  that  com- 
prehendeth  all  others./ 

But  suppose  that  by  bodye  was  meante  an  owtward  visible  or 
particuler  Church,  and  that  by  one  were  ment  one  kinde  in 
respect  of  the  essencyall  forme,  definition,  and  nature,  will  it 
thence  followe  that  there  male  not  be  in  anie  sense  another 
kinde  of  Church  ?    Verelye,  noe.    Noe  more  then  it  will  followe 
that  there  is  but  one  kinde  of  baptisme  or  one  kinde  of  god  in 
anie  sense,  because  he  sayth  one  baptisme,  one  God,  for  the  bap-    [Mat.  3.  n.| 
tisme  he  speaketh  of  there  you  take  to  ymport  the  externall    [Mat.  20.  22.] 
sacrament  of  baptisme,  yet  is  there  another  kinde  of  internall 
baptisme  of  which  Christ  himself  is  the  minister,  and  there  is  a 
baptisme  also  by  affliction,  which  are  other  kindes,  yea  a  bap-    [Math.  21.  25.I 
tisme  of  doctrine  which  comprehendes  that  of  water  vnder  it.    [Act.  i8.  25.  & 
So  are  there  other  kindes  of  gods  then  the  true  God,  for  he  said,  I    ^9-  3] 
haue  said,  yee  are  gods.    There  be,  saith  Paul,  manye  gods  and    ^^  q'^j.  g  - 1 
manye  lords,  which  are  other  kindes  of  gods,  that  is,  not  simpUe, 
nor  in  such  a  sense,  as  oure  God  is  one,  but  in  another  meanyng, 
and  in  that  meaning  true,  for  magistrates  are  not  false  gods, 
but  not  properUe  soe.     In  like  manner,  there  is  one  kinde  of 
Church,  that  is,  a  particuler  congregation  drawen  together  into 
covenant  with  God,  &c.    Yet  there  male  be  also  manye  other 
kindes  of  Churches,  that  is  assemblies,  called  one,  not,  as  the 
other,  simpUe  and  properlie  one  because  they  male  meete  alto- 


12 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


gether  at  once,  but  because  theye  meete  in  one  profession  and 
vnder  one  superior  externall  power.  So,  yf  for  advantage  your 
false  glosse  were  gyven  you,  your  argument  is  a  sophisme,  a  dicto 
secundum  quid  ad  dictum  simpliciter.  There  is  in  some  sense  but 
one  kinde,  therefore  there  is  but  one  kinde  in  anie  sense  like  this. 
There  is  in  some  sense  but  one  onelie  begotten  sonne  of  God, 
therefore  there  is  in  noe  sense  anie  other  sonnes  begotten  of 
God.  And  that  you  maie  see  the  vanitie  of  it,  I  thus  invert  the 
place  vpon  you:  If  there  maie  possiblie  be  manie  kinde  of 
Churches  and  one  comprehendyng  another,  both  called  Churches 
tnilie  and  true  Churches,  but  in  seuerall  respectes  called  one, 
then  the  Apostle  in  saying  there  is  one  bodye  doth  not  proue 
that  there  cannott  be  a  provinceall  Church  comprehendyng 
manie  particulers,  but  the  former  is  true,  therefore  the  latter./ 
The  former  is  true  nott  onelie  in  respect  of  the  vniuersall  Church 
comprehending  all  the  particulers,  and  the  nationall  Church  of 
the  lewes  conteyninge  all  the  sinogogues,  but  of  particuler 
Churches  conteyning  the  Churches  of  particuler  famelies.  The 
Church  of  Rome  did  comprehend  the  Churche  that  was  in  the 
house  of  Priscilla  &  Aquila,  Rom.  i6.  5.  Nowe  I  aske,  where  is 
youre  one  Churche,  that  is  one  kinde  of  Church,  become  ?/ 


Your  third  reason  followes: 
Robinson         //  a  particuler  Church  he  the  bodye  of  Christe,  as  i.  Cor.  12.  27, 
df  he  the  head,  then  a  diocesan  Church  or  ministration  ^  so  the 
rest  must  needes  he  a  monstrous  interposition  and  intrusion  he- 
twixt  the  head  6°  the  hodye./ 

Answer  I  will  not  call  you  into  questyon  for  the  vnorderlie  confoundyng 
of  Church  and  ministration,  as  if  they  sounded  one  thing,  but  I 
answere  that  you  plaie  the  sophister  in  this  argument  alsoe, 
disputinge  ab  accidente  comuni  tanquam  a  propria,  takeyng  that 
title  to  be  onelye  proper  to  a  particuler  congregation,  which  is 
comon  thereto  with  the  vniuersall,  &  so  by  a  proportion  with  a 
nationall,  so  farre  as  it  comprehendeth  anie  true  partes  or  mem- 
bers of  the  vniuersall  Church  or  is  ioyned  in  the  profession  of 
the  true  fayth,  as  yf  one  should  reason  thus:  Yf  euerye  particuler 
Christyan  be  the  Temple  of  the  holye  Ghoste,  then  a  particuler 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  1 3 

congregation  is  not  soe,  or  yf  everye  private  Christian  be  a  mem- 
ber of  Christe,  then  a  particuler  Church  is  not  soe./ 
If  you  would  argue  to  purpose,  you  should  haue  said:  Yf  a  par- 
ticuler congregation  be  the  onelie  bodye  of  Christe,  then  a  prov- 
inceall  Church  cannott  be  soe.  But  you  sawe  howe  absurd  it 
would  be  to  saye  that  onelie  a  particuler  congregation  was  the 
bodye  of  Christe,  &  therefore  forbore  that  worde  onelye,  on 
which  the  argument  should  haue  rested,  &  had  not  the  iudgment 
to  for  beare  the  argument  it  self./  And  to  shewe  you  the  wretch- 
ednes  of  your  argument  from  this  place,  I  would  thus  reason:  Yf 
the  Church  of  Corynth  were  the  bodye  of  Christe,  then  your 
Church  of  Leyden  is  not,  nor  anie  other  particuler  church  out  of 
Corynth,  for  to  them  onelye  Paule  there  sayth,  Yee  are  the 
bodye  of  Christe.  You  will  answere  that  Paule  doth  not  soe 
affirme  it  of  the  Corynthians,  but  that  it  maie  be  also  affirmed 
of  other  Churches.  Soe  sale  I.  It  is  not  so  affirmed  of  a  particuler 
congregation  that  it  is  the  bodye  of  Christe,  but  that  it  maie  agree 
to  all  particuler  congregations  gathered  vnto  Christe,  whether  in 
a  diocesse  or  nation  or  in  the  world,  that  theye  are  the  bodye  of 
Christ,  whether  for  the  same  respectes  or  other./ 
That  which  you  insinuate  of  a  monstrous  intrusion,  saying  that 
yf  a  particuler  congregacyon  he  the  bodye  of  Christ  and  he  the  head 
of  it,  then  anie  dioceasan  ministration  is  a  monstrous  interposition, 
&c.,  doth  not  onelie  push  at  episcopall  power,  but  at  that  of 
sinods  equallye,  and  is  a  fantasticall  toye  contrarye  to  the 
Scripture.  In  the  verye  next  verse,  which  sayeth.  And  God  hath 
ordeyned  some  in  the  Church,  as  firste  Apostles,  &c.,  for  were  not 
the  Apostles  ouer  the  particuler  Churches  ?  Had  they  not 
provinceall,  nationall,  yea,  vniuersall  power  ouer  the  particuler 
churches  ?  And  even  then  when  Paule  saith  to  the  Corinthians, 
yee  are  the  bodye  of  Christe,  and  that  Christ  was  theire  head  ? 
But  you  forget  that  there  maye  be  a  necke  to  conveye  from  the 
head  to  the  bodye,  or  that  one  man  maie  possiblie  serue  therein 
to  sundrye  bodyes,  as  the  Apostles,  evangelistes,  and  prophettes 
did./ 

Finallye,  yf  because  the  Church  is  the  bodye  of  Christe,  and  he 
the  head  of  it,  there  maie  be  for  the  externall  regiment  noe 
interposition  betwixt  her  and  her  head,  I  will  not  aske  what 


14  AN  ANSWER  TO 

Counselles  shall  doe,  but  I  aske  what  are  you  to  your  congrega- 
tion ?  You  are  not  the  bodye  nor  the  head.  Are  you  a  monstrous 
interposition  betwixt  them  both  ?  They  that  will  presse  simili- 
tudes and  allegoryes  to  farre  wringe  sower  conclusions  out  of 
sweet  scriptures,  as  they  that  presse  grapes  to  much  gett  sower 
iewce./ 

Your  fourth  argument  followes  thus:/ 
Robinson  Christe  speaketh  immediatlye  without  diocesan  or  provinceall 
Churches  to  the  y  Churches  oj  Asia,  and  standes  in  the  middest 
oj  the  7  goulden  candlestickes,  Rev.  i.  ii.  ij,  df  hath  promised 
his  presence  where  two  or  3  or  more  are  gathered  together  in  his 
name,  Math.  18.  20,  as  the  true  Churche  of  Christe  maie  be,  and 
ordinarilie  is  so  gathered  together  in  one  to  comunicate  in  the 
word,  prayers,  sacramentes,  and  censures  of  the  Church,  i. 
Cor.  5.  4.  5.  6*  II.  18.  20  &*  14.  23./ 

*Answer  Call  you  this  disputyng.  Christ  spake  not  to  the  7  Churches  of 
Asia  by  anye  diocesan  Church.  Ergo,  a  diocesan  Church  is  a 
false  Church.  Is  not  this  as  good,  Christe  spake  not  to  the 
Churches  of  Asia  by  a  particuler  Church,  therefore  a  particuler 
Church  is  a  false  Churche?  Is  not  this  good  stuffe?  Againe, 
Christ  is  in  the  middest  of  the  7  Churches  of  Asia,  therefore  a 
diocesan  Church  is  noe  true  Church.  Is  not  this  as  good,  Christe 
is  in  the  middest  of  all  particuler  Churches,  therefore  the  Catho- 
like  Church  is  noe  true  Church  ?/ 

Agayne,  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  in  his  name,  Christ  is 
in  the  middest  of  them.  Ergo,  a  diocesan  Church  is  a  false 
Church  ?  Is  not  this  argument  as  good  ?  Where  twoe  or  three 
are  gathered  in  the  name  of  Christe,  he  is  in  the  middest  of  them, 
therefore  the  Catholike  Churche  which  never  was,  is,  or  shalbe 
gathered  into  one  assemblie  till  the  daie  of  ludgment,  is  till  then 
a  false  Churche./ 

But  you  haue  perhaps  some  better  meaning  then  your  words 
pretend,  &  verelye  you  had  need,  for  never  heard  I  anie  man  that 
had  tasted  logicke  or  learninge,  reason  soe  as  you  doe,  which  I 
should  not  tell  you  so  plainlie,  but  that  I  think  your  ouer  weaning 
requires  such  plaines./ 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  1 5 

But  to  make  your  arguments  as  good  as  vpon  this  ground  they 
can  be,  thus  they  rise :  The  7  Churches  of  Asia  were  true  Churches 
of  Christe  and  all  true  particuler  Churches  haue  Christe  in  the 
middest  of  them,  therefore  a  provinceall  Church  is  noe  true 
Church  of  Christe.  This  foUowes  not,  and  this  is  noe  other  argu- 
ment then  your  first,  whose  answere  maie  serue  theretoe,  nameUe 
that  it  is  a  fallacye,  yea  a  double  fallacye,  a  non  causa  pro  causa, 
et  ah  accidentia  as  yf  one  should  saie:  The  particuler  cittyes  of 
Holland,  Freisland,  Vtreck,  &c.,  are  ech  of  them  true  states  by 
themselues,  ergo,  the  vnited  provinces  together  are  not  one  true 
state,  when  as  in  seuerall  respectes  they  are  manye,  &  but  one, 
and  both  true  states./ 

Your  mayne  ground  is  shutt  in  a  parenthesis  wherein  you  saye, 
that  the  true  Church  of  Christe  maie  he  and  ordynarilie  is  so  gath- 
ered together  in  one  to  comunicate  in  the  word,  sacramentes,  and 
censures  of  the  Churche,  &'c./,  which  is  a  false  description  of  the 
trueries  of  a  Church,  for  hereby  you  make  this  poynt  of  gatheryng 
into  one  assembhe  the  verye  point  of  difference  betwixt  true  and 
false  Churches,  which  is  a  grosse  absurditie.  And  withall  you 
inferre,  that  those  which  doe  nott  or  cannott  ordinarylie  meete, 
&c.,  are  a  false  Church,  which  is  false  alsoe,  for  what  yf  persecu- 
tion should  soe  rage  that  the  brethren  neyther  did  nor  could 
ordinarilie  meete  to  the  true  worship  of  God,  were  they  a  false 
Churche?  or  should  not  their  fellowship  in  profession  &  cove- 
nant once  made,  &  theire  comunion  in  the  fayth,  hould  them  still 
in  some  such  societie  as  might  iustlie  yeild  them  the  title  of  a 
true  Church  of  God  ?/ 

2.  If  this  were  essenciall  to  a  true  Church,  then  allso  to  euerye 
member  of  a  true  Church,  soe  far  as  it  is  a  member,  so  that  he 
were  cutt  of  from  the  Church  that  were  cutt  of  by  violence  from 
the  ordinarye  meetinges  thereof./ 

3.  Yea,  yf  this  ground worke  be  good,  then  are  the  Churches  no 
longer  true  Churches  then  while  they  are  in  assemblie  together, 
for  the  word  Church  is  noe  more  but  assemblie,  or  congregation, 
as  you  knowe,  &  howe  will  you  haue  them  true  Churches,  when 
they  are  nott  att  all  Churches,  by  your  rule./ 

4.  Suppose  this  did  agree  as  an  inseperable  qualitye  to  every 
particuler  true  Church  to  meete  ordynarilie  to  the  worship  of  God, 


1 6  AN  ANSWER  TO 

yett  it  will  not  foUowe  that  a  diocesan  Church  is  nott  at  all  a 
true  Church,  but  onelie  that  it  is  not  a  particular  Church,  whose 
covenantes  &  dutye  is  to  meete  in  one  place  ordinarilye./  This 
is  the  same  sophisme  sodden  ouer  againe  (which  mends  it  not)  a 
dido  secundum  quid  ad  dictum  simpliciter./ 

Robinson  But  it  seemeth  to  be  your  iudgment  aswell  as  myne  that  a  par- 
ticuler  Church  is  the  onelye  true  body  pollitique  &*  ecclesiastically 
as  appeareth  in  that  you  determine  all  profession  &*  practize  of 
divine  worship  to  such  a  bodye,  whence  I  thus  conclude./ 
Yf  comunion  maie  be  had  onelie  in  the  true  Church,  &•  that  a 
partictder  Church  be  the  onelie  true  Church,  b"  that  noe  man  can 
haue  comunion  in  St  Andrewes  Church  but  he  must  also  haue 
comunion  in  a  diocesan,  provinceall,  and  nationall  Church, 
which  are  noe  true  Churches,  then  comunion  cannott  lawfullye 
be  had  ivith  St  Andrewes  Church,  &'  so  separation  is  iust  d* 
necessarye./ 

Answer  Because  I  said  that,  to  speake  properlie,  euery  particuler  congre- 
gation is  a  Church,  &  the  Church  of  England  is  nott  one,  but 
after  a  manner  of  speakyng,  that  is  to  sale,  not  properlie  or 
simplie  one,  you  take  it  I  am  of  your  iudgment,  as  yf  one  should 
denye  him  to  be  the  sonne  of  God  att  all  that  is  not  soe  properlie, 
or  should  affirme  that  he  is  noe  true  member  of  Christes  bodie 
that  is  not  properlie  a  member  of  his  proper  bodye./ 
Vnderstand,  Sir,  that  thus  I  wrott  to  haue  cutt  you  from  those 
quarrelles  which  you  might  more  iustlye  pretend  against  the 
Church  of  England  taken  as  one,  and  to  haue  made  you  more 
easilye  see  your  sinne  of  forsakyng  that  particuler  Churche  against 
which  you  could  nott  pretend  so  much;  but  I  neuer  was  of  your 
mynde  in  this  pointe,  and  I  trust  neuer  shall  beleue  but  that 
all  the  Churches  of  a  nation  vnited  in  one  fayth  and  proffession 
(which  is  the  reall  outward  vnion  of  particuler  members  of  Christ 
&  his  Church)  meetyng  sometymes  in  their  officers  or  deputies, 
ranged  vnder  one  superior  externall  power  of  discipline,  maie  be 
called  convenientlie  one  Church,  and  that  theire  fayth  and  pro- 
fession beyng  true,  they  are  a  true  nationall  Church.  Wherefore, 
against  your  conclusion  I  oppose./ 
That  yf  comunion  ought  to  be  held  with  the  true  Churches  of 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  1 7 

God  to  which  we  haue  ioyned  oure  selues,  and  the  Church  of  St 
Andrewe  in  Norwich  be  a  true  particuler  Church  (allthough  a 
member  or  parcell  of  a  nationall  or  diocesan  Church),  then 
comunion  ought  by  you  to  haue  beene  held  with  it,  and  therefore 
your  separation  was  neyther  necessarye  nor  iust,  but  schismaticall 
and  sinnefull,  of  which  I  beseeche  the  God  of  mercye  to  gyue 
you  true  repentance  in  due  tyme,  and  to  make  youre  returne  as 
famous  as  your  falUng  of  is  notorious  and  scandalous./ 

Everye  true  Church  of  God  is  gathered  out  of  the  world  and  sepa-  Robinson 
rated  and  sanctified  actuallye  from  the  same  in  religious  comunion  2 .  Argumeat 
accordyng  to  the  dispensation  of  the  tymes,  whether  before  the 
Lawe  or  vnder  the  Lawe  or  since  Christe  came  in  the  flesh.  Gen. 
J.  75.  6*  4.  16.  b*  6.  2.b'  g.  26.  27.  Sr*  12.  i.  2.  j.  Levit.  20.  7. 
2.  4.  Ezra.  10.  II.  Nehemiah.  g.  2.  loh.  15.  ig.  Act.  2.  40.  dr 
ig.  g.  Rom  i.  7.  /  Cor.  i.  2.  g.  Phil.  i.  6.  7.  But  St.  Andrewes 
is  not  so  gathered  out  of  the  world,  nor  separated  and  sanctefied 
from  the  world  according  to  the  dispensation  of  the  Go  spell,  but 
was  at  the  first  gathered  for  the  most  parte,  and  so  still  consisteth 
verye  much  of  the  men  of  the  world,  as  is  most  apparent,  as  by 
other  enormityes,  so  in  particuler  by  the  persecutions  raised  even 
amongst  them  selues  against  such  as  prof  esse  the  feare  of  God  in 
anye  sinceritye,  besides  that  it  standes  vnseparated  from  6*  in 
spirituall  comunion  one  bodye  ecclesiasticall  visiblye  or  exter- 
nally e  with  all  that  parte  of  the  world  within  the  kinges  domin- 
ions./ 

Your  first  proposition  is  not  cleare  enough,  for  yf  by  separation  Answer 
from  the  world  and  actuall  sanctification  you  meane  that  the 
Churches  of  God  are  so  separated  in  the  profession  they  vnder- 
take  &  ought  to  be  practized,  then  it  is  true,  but  yf  you  meane 
(as  it  seemes  you  doe)  that  all  true  particuler  Churches  and  mem- 
bers therof  are  reallye  sanctefyed  and  separated  by  the  spirit  of 
sanctification  from  the  wicked,  or  elles  cease  to  be  the  Churches 
of  God,  your  proposition  is  Anabaptisticall  &  false,  and  so  dis- 
proued  by  the  holy  scriptures,  as  I  wonder  anye  man  can  vtter 
it  that  reades  them./ 

The  places  you  alledge  for  proofe  of  this  fansie  are  divers,  none 
proveyng,  most  disproveyng  the  same,  For  Gen.  i.  15  is  proper  lie 


1 8  AN  ANSWER  TO 

to  be  vnderstood  of  Christ,  analogicallye  of  the  true  Children 
of  God  which  are  at  enmitye  with  the  world,  even  though  theye  be 
ioyned  externally e  in  one  spirituall  comunion,  as  were  Ismael  & 

*Gal.  4. 29.      Isaak,  lacob  &  Esaw,  &  some  of  the  Galatians  (as  it  seemeth). 

*Gen.  14.  16.  Your  second  place  maie  importe  noe  more  but  that  Cayne,  de- 
parting from  God's  presence  which  then  had  talked  with  him, 
went  to  the  land  of  Nod,  &c.,  as  a  man  ashamed  of  his  facte. 
But  was  Cayne  euer  actually  sanctifyed,  or  was  he  not,  of  the 
Church  before  ?  or  were  the  rest  noe  true  Church  till  he  was 
separated  ?  or  did  they  cast  him  oute  ?/ 

Your  third  Gen.  6.  2  shewes,  indeed,  that  there  were  some  that 
professed  God's  seruice,  when  others  became  prophane,  but  had 
these  sonnes  of  God  beene  all  actuallye  sanctefied  they  would 
haue  forborne  the  daughters  of  men,  and  when  they  did  mixe 
with  them,  were  they  not  still  for  a  tyme  the  visible  Church  of 
God  ?  or  was  there  none  ? 

Gen.  9.  26.  27  prophesies  that  God's  covenant  should  be  espe- 
cyally  stablished  with  Shem's  posterity e  which  were  the  lewes. 
And  were  all  the  lewes  (saue  in  profession  and  dutye)  actuallye 
separated  from  the  world  &  actually  sanctified  ?  Will  Mr 
Robynson  affyrme  that,  agaynste  all  God's  complayntes  of  them 
by  the  prophets  ? 

Gen.  12.  I.  Abraham  is  separated  from  his  idolatrous  kindred, 
even  locallye,  what  then  ?  Will  you  inferre  a  locall  separation 
alsoe  from  the  world  ?  Againe  was  not  this  in  respect  of  externall 
worship  of  the  true  God  ?  Was  Abraham  alone  a  Churche  ? 
Or  were  all  his  familie  internally  saintes  ?  even  Ismaell  also  ? 
or  were  they  not  all  one  church  with  him  ?  Levit.  20.  7,  Sanctefie 
your  selues  &c.,  proues  that  the  people  which  professe  God's 
name,  ought  to  be  sanctefied,  but  doth  not  proue  that  theye  are 
soe,  or  elles  are  nott  (as  touching  externall  covenant  and  ap- 
pearance) God's  people.  Vers.  2,  of  not  sacrificeing  theire  sonnes 
to  Molech  and  punishing  with  death  such  as  did  it,  touched  a 
mayne  pointe  of  worship  wherein  yett  yf  some  fayled  (as  they 
after  did),  the  rest  sufiferyng  them,  yett  ceased  not  the  lewes  to 
be  the  people  of  God.  From  fay  ling  in  a  dutye  to  a  falling  from 
covenant  houldes  neyther  in  a  Church  nor  in  a  Christyan./ 
Ezra  10.  II  requires  separation  from  grosse  idolaters  and  strange 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  1 9 

women,  but  doth  not  proue  that  theye  were  all  personallye  and 
inwardlye  saintes,  when  this  was  done,  nor  that  they  were  not 
the  true  people  of  God  before  this  separation,  yea  therein  is 
against  you./ 

Nehem.  9.  2  shewes  a  particuler  separation  from  aUens  which 
perhaps  would  not  ioyne  with  them  in  God's  worship,  but  proues 
not  all  Israeli  to  haue  beene  internally  sanctified,  or  not  to  haue 
beene  externallye  God's  people  before  this  separation,  but 
contrarylye/. 

loh.  15.  19.  The  world  that  hated  the  disciples  were  the  lewes, 
which  at  that  tyme  were  the  visible  Church  of  God,  though  not 
true  members  in  the  sighte  of  God.  The  world  is  sometimes  in 
the  Church  and  even  there  hates  those  that  are  in  it  &  of  it./ 
Acts  2.  40  is  an  exhortation  indeed  to  separation  in  pointe  of 
fayth  from  those  that  resist  the  Messiah,  not  from  all  comunion 
with  them  in  everye  pointe  of  God's  worship,  wherein  the  Apos- 
tles obserued  them  for  a  tyme,  nor  doth  this  place  proue  that 
particuler  Churches  in  all  the  members  therein  are  actuallye 
sanctified,  seing  a  man  might,  and  manie  did,  abandon  the 
lewish  injfidelitie  that  were  never  sanctified  in  theire  hartes,  as 
Ananias,  &  Saphira,  &  Simon  Magus./ 

Paule  separated  from  blasphemers  &  withdrewe  the  disciples  to  Acts  19.  9. 
another  place.  What  then  ?  Therefore  it  is  fitt  to  withdrawe 
doctrine  from  dispisers,  &  the  brethren  from  such  companie. 
This  will  follow  well,  but  therefore  all  the  members  of  a  true 
visible  Church  are  actuallye  sanctified  will  not  foUowe,  noe  nor 
that  they  are  actuallye  separated,  for  I  demaund.  Were  the 
brethren  whome  Paule  at  lengthe  separated  a  Church  of  God 
before  that  separation  or  noe  ?  The  most  that  can  be  inferred 
hence  is,  that  there  ought  to  be  a  separation  from  obstinate  re- 
fusers, but  proues  not  that  yf  this  be  not  done,  God's  people 
loose  theire  beyng./ 

Called  to  be  saynts  in  Rom.  i.  7  is  as  much  as  saintes  by  calling, 
I.  Cor.  1.2,  which  shewes  what  is  the  profession  and  dutye  of 
euerye  member  of  the  Churches,  not  what  is  their  capacytie./ 
And  yf  you  did  not  loose  your  eyes  by  stryveyng,  you  might  see 
that  even  amongst  them  whome  the  Apostle  calleth  sayntes  by 
calling,  there  were  manie  corupt,  &  vnsanctefied  persons,  car- 


*d 


20  AN  ANSWER  TO 

*»  I.  Cor.  3.  I.  4.    nallye "  contentious  one  with  another,  wantons  &  vncleane  per- 
*''  2.  Cor.  12.         sons,''  prophaners  of  the  lordes  sacramentes,'^  doubters  of  the 
I.    or.  II.  30.    j.gguj.rection,<i  &c.,  and  it  seemes  that  in  the  Church  of  Galatia"^ 
Gal.  4.  29./       there  were  that  persequuted  theire  godlye  brethren  as  you  saie 
there  be  in  St  Andre wes,  which  yett  are  counted  one  bodye  or 
comunion  with  the  true  saintes  among  them,  because  of  this 
externall  profifession  wherin  they  ioyned  with  them./ 
As  for  Phil.  i.  6  it  is  no  better,  for  the  Apostle  speakes  of  that 
Church  accordyng  to  the  good  parte  of  it,  &  respectiuelye  to  the 
true  lyving  members  therof  which  were  sanctefied,  not  denying 
but  there  were  amongst  them  even  of  their  teachers  bellye  gods 
Phil.  3.  18.         and  worldlynges,  of  whome  he  giveth  them  warning  with  teares.* 
So  then  I  invert,  Yf  the  lewes  were  the  true  people  of  God  and 
to  be  ioyned   with  in   God's  worship   notwithstandyng   their 
mixture  of  cleane  and  vncleane  and  the  shamefuU  fillthines  of 
manners  which  were  in  some  of  them,  so  long  as  they  yett  re- 
teyned  the  fundamentall  partes  of  God's  externall  worship;/   if 
the  churches  of  Galatia,  Corinthe,  Asia  were  true  Churches, 
when  they  had  some  amongst  them  vniust,  vnholye,  loving  the 
wages  of  vnrighteousnes,   teaching  alsoe  some  false  doctrine, 
then  it  followes  that  everye  true  Church  of  God  is  not  (in  all  the 
members  therof)  separated  from  the  world  and  actuallye  sancte- 
fied, but  in  onely  such  of  the  members  as  are  the  seed  of  God 
accordyng  to  the  election  of  grace,  whose  right  is  not  lost  by  other 
men's  lewdnes,  &  that  such  churches  are  not  to  be  forsaken./ 
No  we  to  your  minor  touching  St  Andrewes  parish./ 
I  further  answere  that  as  touching  profession  of  fayth  &  sanctetye 
accordyng  to  the  word  there  taught  and  professed  and  sacra- 
mentes  administred,  it  was  gathered  and  actuallye  separated  from 
the  world  &  sanctified,  which  is  as  much  as  is  needfull  to  the  con- 
stitution of  a  particuler  visible  Church.  If  some  be  loose  and  hate- 
full  against  others  that  are  better  reformed,  it  is  noe  other  then  in 
other  Churches,  that  is  to  saie,  a  fault  of  men's  persons./    Touch- 
ing the  first  gathering  thereof  it  perteynes  rather  to  your  third 
argument  &  there  shall  receyve  further  answere./ 
The  comunion  it  professedlie  houldes  with  all  his  Maiestie's 
dominions  is  cheifelye  in  the  fayth  of  Christ  and  true  worship 
of  God./ 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


21 


The  summe  of  my  answere  is  this,  that  your  maior  is  false,  vnder- 
stood  as  you  doe  of  reall  separation  from  the  wicked  and  actuall 
sanctefication./ 

And  yf  you  vnderstand  it  of  the  profession  of  sanctefication 
whereto  a  church  of  Christe  is  called,  then  is  your  minor  false 
touching  St  Andrewes  parishe,  wherein  yf  there  be  manye, 
might  [?]  they  swarue  from  that  to  which  they  are  called,  as 
Israeli  did  to  whome  it  was  said :  Be  yee  holy,  for  I  the  Lorde 
your  God  am  holye./ 

I  come  to  your  third  argument  with  this  onelye  item,  that  your 
second  and  third  (as  your  first)  doe  aswell  condemne  eyther  all 
or  most  of  the  reformed  Churches,  as  namelye  those  of  Scotland, 
and  this  of  the  lowe  countries,  as  the  Churches  of  England,  for 
in  them  is  mixture,  and  they  were  by  authoritie  compelled  to  de- 
sist from  superstition,  and  resume  the  true  worship  of  God,  yf 
they  would  haue  favoure  of  the  magistrate./ 

Everye  true  Church  of  God  is  ioyned  with  him  in  holye  covenant 
by  voluntarye  profession  to  haue  him  the  God  therof  &^  to  be  his 
people.  Gen.  ly.  i.  2;  Deut.  zg.  10.  11.  12  &c.;  Nehem.  10. 
I.  2g;  Acts  2.  41;  i.  loh.  i.  j;  2.  Cor.  6.  16.  b°  g.  13./ 

Your  first  proposition,  vnderstood  as  you  vnderstand  it  generallye 
of  all  Churches  and  of  such  a  voluntarye  profession  as  excludes 
the  compulsion  of  any  externall  power,  is  false,  but  for  the  better 
discerning  of  the  error  thereof,  it  behoueth  to  premise  some  ad- 
monitions, &  first  to  distinguish  the  first  erecting  or  foundyng  of 
a  Church  (where  none  was)  as  it  were  vpon  a  newe  foundation 
from  the  reedyfying  or  repayring  of  a  church  vpon  the  founda- 
tion formerly  layed./ 

For  even  as  in  the  case  of  the  maried  where  cause  of  separation 
hath  beene  gyven,  it  is  not  needfull  to  solemnize  a  newe  mariage 
or  begin  the  contract  againe  but  onelie  to  recognize  the  bond 
allreadye  entred,  so  it  is  in  the  case  of  Churches  which  haue 
fallen  in  greate  measure  from  their  covenant,  that  there  needs 
not  as  at  the  first  a  newe  collection  or  calling  out  to  make  a  cove- 
nant, but  a  recognition  of  the  covenant  once  made  in  takeyng  vp 
the  profession  and  practize  thereof./ 
And  in  this  case  of  recognition  or  reduction  that  is  lawfull  & 


Robinson 
3.  Argument 


Answer 
[This  distinction 
of  planting  and 
repayring 
Churches  your 
owne  Mr  CMfton 
is  forced  to  Iboke 
vp  against  Mr 
Smith  for  the 
baptizing  of  the 
children  of 
apostate  Churches: 
who  thinkes  the 
word  repayring 
fitter  then  yours 
of  constituting 
Churches.     Page 
201  &  before  page 
187.] 


22 


AN  ANSWER    TO 


[fWhich  was  as 
your  owne  Mr 
Clifton  shewes 
before  the 
apostacie  of 
Antichrist.    Plea 
of  Infants,  page 
200  &  204,  yet 
were  these  dio- 
caesan  Churches.] 
["  2  Chron.  15.  13- 
^  2  Chron.  30.  5. 
12. 

=  2  Chron.  34.  32. 
<*  Ezra  7.  26.] 


[The  substance 
of  a  thing  is  that 
which  giues  the 
first  essence 
thereto.    The 
solemnity  is  a 
manner  or  qual- 
lity  accidental!  or 
happening  to  the 
thing,  whereby 
the  act  is  made 
solemne,  saith 
Alciati:  Lib.  5. 
Paradoxorum,  2 
dox.,  cap.  15.] 


fitte  which  at  the  first  entrye  of  covenant  had  beene  iniurious 
[?],  even  as  when  a  man  hath  taken  vp  his  freedome,  he  is  lyable 
to  taxes  and  dutyes  which  before  could  not  be  imposed;  or  as  a 
seruant  haueying  once  entred  condicions  of  service,  maie  after 
iustlye  be  compelled  to  keepe  those  condicyons  which  he  could 
not  at  the  first  be  compelled  to  enter  into,  soe  it  is  for  those  that 
for  themselues  &  for  theire  seed  haue  once  voluntarilye  embraced 
covenant  with  God,  that  yf  they  or  theires  after  fall  from  it,  they 
maye  be  by  censures  of  the  Church,  or  cyvill  power  compelled 
to  resimie  theire  covenant,  of  which  we  see  examples  in  the 
scriptures./ 

No  we,  accordyng  to  this  true  ground,  you  ought  to  haue  con- 
sidered (which  you  forgett)  that  the  reformations  made  in  Queene 
Elizabethes  or  King  Edwardes  daies,  were  not  the  first  plantyng 
of  the  Englishe  Churches  (which  were  then  planted  when  by  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospell  theye  were  converted  to  the  Christian 
fayth  &  gaue  them  selues  thereto  voluntarylye),!  but  were  onely 
such  a  reducyng  of  them  to  the  true  worship  of  God  (with  whome 
they  still  professed  to  hould  covenant)  as  the  scriptures  doe  hon- 
orablie  commend  to  haue  beene  vrged  by  Asa,^  Hezekiah,^ 
losiah,*'  and  some  other  kinges.'*/ 

Soe  vnthankfullye  doe  you  blame  the  worthye  endevoures  of  our 
princes  cut  out  after  the  paterne  of  the  famous  kinges  of  luda, 
and  so  vnskillfullye  doe  you  confound  the  callyng,  &  recalling, 
building,  and  repayring  of  the  Churches,  makeyng  that  essentiall 
in  the  one  case  that  is  soe  onelye  in  the  other./ 
There  is  yett  one  thing  more  to  be  admonished,  namely  that  you 
doe  confound  an  extemall  solemnitie  or  forme  of  profession  with 
the  essentiall  outward  forme  of  a  Church,  and  make  that  to  be  of 
the  essence  which  is  but  of  the  ornament,  as  were  those  sollemne 
professions  of  repentance  or  renewing  covenant  alledged  by  you, 
which  did  not  make  the  people  of  God  then  to  be  (as  doth  the 
essentiall  forme),  but  did  as  a  solemnitie  declare  the  same  to  be 
his  people  professedlye./ 

These  things  beyng  premised,  no  we  lett  vs  examine  your  argu- 
ment in  all  the  proofes  of  it,  and  see  howe  vnsufficyent  they  are 
to  your  purpose.  Gen.  17.  i.  2  proues  not  that  everye  member 
of  a  visible  Church  doth  voluntarilye  take  vpon  him  the  covenant, 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


23 


but  that  such  members  as  will  approue  themselues  to  God  must 
bee  perfect,  that  is  vpright./ 

Secondlye,  this  was  at  the  first  institution  of  the  covenant  before 
circumcision,  vnto  which  though  Abraham  as  the  first  taker  vp 
of  this  tenure  must  needs  enter  voluntarilie,  yett  was  it  imposed 
on  others  without  their  consent,  which  the  text  it  self  cleares, 
verse  9.  10.  11.  12,  where  the  badge  of  covenant  is  imposed  vpon 
the  child  of  8  daies  ould  who  was  not  led  to  take  it  vpon  him  (as 
Abraham)  by  voluntary  profession  but  rather  compelled./ 
Thirdlye,  your  instance  is  not  of  a  Church,  but  of  a  person,  be- 
twixt which  there  is  great  odds,  for  a  visible  Church  standyng  in 
covenant  maye  consiste  of  elect  and  reprobate,  but  noe  person 
houldeth  covenant  with  God  in  private,  but  the  elect  of  God 
onelye./ 

Lastlye,  Abraham  was  separated  vnto  God  before  this  solemnitie,t 
and  therefore  it  is  ill  appHed  to  the  first  act  of  gathering  or  sepa- 
ratynge  vnto  God  by  covenant./ 

Your  second  place  out  of  Deut.  29.  10.  11.  12.  13  is  onlie  of  a 
solemne  renewing  ="  of  covenant,  which  did  not  make  them  nowe 
to  become  the  people  of  God  by  gathering  them  into  a  covenant, 
but  serued  to  stirre  vp  conscience  of  the  covenant  made  with 
them  before,  like  as  the  Judges  of  Sparta  renewed  ther  oathes 
once  a  month,  which  solemnitie  did  not  then  make  them  newe 
Judges  but  put  them  in  minde  of  their  ould  dutyes./  For  it  is 
confessed,  vers,  i,  that  before  this  covenant  God  had  made  a 
covenant  f  with  them  in  Horeb  (which  was  not  of  God's  parte 
revoked)  as  before  with  Abraham  &  his  seed.  Gen.  17./ 
Moreouer,  this  place  proues  not  that  all  did  it  voluntarily,  but 
that  they  ought  rather,  as  beyng  drawne  to  that  end  before  the 
Lord's  presence./ 

It  was  made  not  onelye  with  the  present  assemblie,  vers.  14.  15, 
but  aswell  with  the  absent,  whose  voluntarye  consent  no  man 
could  knowe,  but  Moses  knewe  it  was  their  dutyes  to  haue  con- 
sented and  bindes  them  to  it./ 

Fynallye,  here  you  put  an  externall  solemnitye  practized  by  such 
as  were  before  this  tyme  God's  people,  for  the  verye  essencyall 
forme  which  makes  the  people  of  God  to  be  that  they  are./ 
Your  third  place  out  of  Nehem.  10.  i  is  as  impertinent,  for  it  is 


[ti5-  18.1 


["  Renewing  not 
entrie  into  coue- 
nant  as  your 
owne  Mr  Clifton 
against  Smith 
sayth  often,  as 
page  21  &  29, 
though  page  196 
he  crosse  himselfe  ] 
[Deut.  29.  I.] 

[fWhence  your  Mr 
Clifton  proues 
that  infants 
may  be  baptized 
without  their 
owne  stipulation 
or  contract  with 
the  Lord.] 

[2ly.| 
[3ly.] 


24 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


^2ly. 


*3iy- 


[Neh.  9.  38. 


[^  By  this  dis- 
tinction your  Mr 
Clifton  defendes 
himselfe  against 
Smith  the  Ana- 
baptist obiecting 
that  place,  187.] 


[5  place] 


onelye  of  an  outward  solemnitye,  vsed  in  testimonye  of  theire 
repentance  at  a  solemne  fast;  and  you  take  an  example  as  a 
necessarye  rule,  an  ornament  for  a  mere  necessitie./ 
This  is  not  of  a  people  gathered  by  this  acte  of  voluntarye  pro- 
fession, for  they  were  before  this  the  people  of  God  &  in  covenant, 
but  was  only  a  godlye  publication  of  their  purpose  to  cleaue  to 
God./ 

The  sealers  here  are  not  all  but  the  cheife  for  the  rest  whose 
voluntarye  consent  they  could  not  knowe,  which  example  might 
rather  haue  showed  you  the  lawfullnes  of  our  princes'  reforma- 
tion, when  by  Acte  of  Parliament  they  repealed  superstitions  and 
published  God's  worship,  wherein  (inclusiuelye)  one  might  saie 
all  the  land  consented  voluntarilye,  at  least  as  well  as  all  Israeli 
vnto  this  acte  of  the  princes,  Levites,  and  preistes,  Nehem.  9.  38./ 
Your  fourth  place  of  Acts  2.  41,  of  baptizing  those  that  gladley 
receyued  the  word  vpon  the  first  plantyng  of  the  Christian 
Churches,  is  vnfittlye  alledged  in  a  case  not  of  plantyng,  but  of 
repairyng;  not  of  baptizyng,  but  of  reforming  the  baptized/ 
Presse  this  place  and  it  will  driue  you  to  the  Annabaptistes,  for 
whye  doe  you  baptize  infantes  or  anye  saue  such  as  gladlie 
receyue  the  word  ?  vnles  there  be  a  difference  to  bee  made  be- 
twixt those  that  are  to  enter,  and  those  that  in  themselues  or 
their  forefathers  were  entred  before,  as  indeed  there  is./  ^ 
By  this  place  you  maie  as  well  proue  with  the  Annabaptistes  that 
none  are  members  of  the  visible  Churches  but  those  that  are 
truelie  sanctefied,  for  such  were  these,  yet  you  require  but  a 
voluntarye  profession  of  covenant,  which  hipocrites  maie  make./ 
I.  John.  I.  3  is  farre  of  from  the  marke,  for  this  onelie  showes 
that  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospell  preached,  men  are  called  into 
the  fellowship  of  God  &  his  sayntes,  but  proues  not  that  the 
posteritie  of  those  which  haue  beene  called  by  doctrine  into  that 
fellowship  maie  not  be  compelled  to  desist  from  superstitions, 
and  from  practizing  anie  other  then  God's  worship  where  toe 
theye  stand  bound  by  auncyent  covenant./ 
If  this  place  will  proue  that  none  be  of  the  visible  Church  but 
such  as  by  illumination  of  the  word  vnite  themselues  to  the 
saintes,  it  will  also  proue  that  none  vnite  themselues  to  the 
Churches  but  those  that  are  alsoe  vnited  to  the  Father  and  the 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


25 


[^  This  distinction 
of  internall  and 
externall,  &c.,  is 
your  Mr  Clifton 
glad  to  take  vpp 
against  the 
Anbaptistes. 
Page  196.] 


Sonne,  that  is  the  seyntes,  as  Mr  Smyth  &  the  Annabaptistes 
hould./  So  there  shall  not  be  anye  hipocrite  in  the  Churches./ 
2  Cor.  6.  16  proues  well  that  God's  people  ought  not  to  haue  com-  [6  place] 
munion  with  idols,  idolaters,  or  vncleanes,  but  rather  separate 
from  them,  which  will  well  warrant  the  magistrates  to  thrust 
God's  people  out  of  such  companye  yf  they  be  not  diligent  enough 
to  goe  of  themselues./ 

The  voluntarye  separacion  to  be  vrged  from  hence  is  not  to    **2. 
make  a  man  externallye  a  member  of  the  visible  Church  (which 
male  be,  whether  his  profession  be  voluntarye  or  noe),^  but  to 
make  him  intemallie  one  of  God's,  which  is  another  point  which 
magistrates  cannott  reache  toe./ 

It  is  one  thing  to  be  one  of  God's  people  at  large,  as  all  the  pro- 
fessed members  of  his  Church  are,  another  to  be  one  of  his  in 
specyall,  as  are  onlye  his  elect.    There  is  a  lewe  which  is  not  a 
lewe,  an  Israelite  not  an  IsraeHte,  a  Christian  not  a  Christian, 
and  as  theyr  condicyons  are  diuers,  so  are  the  essencyall  formes      ^' 
of  their  constitution,  a  point  which  you  seeme  to  forgett  while 
you  require  the  same  condicions  of  euery  externall  member  of 
the  Church,  which  must  be  had  in  everye  sincere  member./ 
Finallye,  out  of  this  place  yssues  an  exhortacyon  that  everye    **4. 
member  of  the  Church  should  purge  himself  from  all  filthines, 
2.  Cor.  7.1,  but  yf  he  doe  not,  it  followes  not  that  he  is  noe  visible 
member,  or  the  congregation  (wherein  he  is)  noe  true  Church  of 
God.    And  therefore  yf  you  will  foUowe  this  place  home  to  the 
marke  in  your  sense,  you  must  turne  Annabaptist,  as  others  haue 
done  vpon  the  same  ground./ 

2.  Cor.  9.  13.  The  voluntarye  submission  of  the  Church  of  Cor-  [7  place] 
inth  to  the  Gospell  at  their  first  calling  proues  not  that  therefore 
in  the  recalling  of  a  wandring  Church  all  the  members  must 
voluntarilye  submitt  theretoe  or  elles  there  is  noe  true  Church. 
However  they  ought  and  must  (yf  they  wilbe  true  members  of 
the  Church)  willinglye  submitt  themselues./ 

You  are  farre  wide  yf  you  thinke  that  whatsoeuer  the  Apostles    **2. 
speake  in  praise  of  the  Churches  was  true  in  all  the  members 
therof,  for  even  amongst  those  Corinthians  (as  appeares)  were    [2.  Cor.  12.  21.] 
manie  such,  as  the  Apostle  feared  he  should  finde  such  as  he 
would  not,  and  such  as  he  should  bewayle,  which  had  not  repented 


26  AN  ANSWER  TO 

of  their  vncleanes,  fornication,  and  wantonnes  committed. 
Thinke  you  these  also  had  submitted  to  the  word  saue  in  pro- 
fession ?/ 

Now  to  your  minor  I  answere,  first,  that  you  deale  not  sincerelye 
in  chaunging  the  state  of  your  question  for  advantage,  for  the 
question  beynge  of  St  Andrewes  as  it  nowe  stands,  you  runne 
backe  to  that  congregation  as  it  stood  fiftye  years  agoe,  as  yf 
because  then  manie  did  suddenlye  &  ignorantlye  embrace  the 
truthe,  for  respect  of  the  lawes,  therefore  now  also  this  congrega- 
tion (wherin  perhaps  be  not  two  of  those  lefte)  doth  not  volun- 
tarelye  receyue  the  covenant  of  God.  Mr  Robinson,  is  this 
answered  with  a  good  conscyence,  is  this  sinceritye  ? 

*2.  Touching  that  congregacion  as  it  was  then,  how  proue  you  it  did 
not  embrace  the  covenant  voluntarilye  ?  forsooth  because  by 
compulsion  ?  what  compulsion  ?  was  there  anye  other  com- 
pulsion then  the  commaund  of  the  lawes  to  desist  from  idolatrie 
&  to  worship  God  accordyng  to  his  word  ?  And  could  not  this 
compulsion  of  lawe  stand  with  voluntarye  submission,  as  well  as 
Israeli  willinglye  embraced  what  Asa  and  his  princes,  Hezekiah 
and  his  princes  decreed  and  enacted,  2.  Cron.  15.  15  &  30.  12?/ 
Verelye,  the  ioye  of  most  places  in  England  at  that  change, 
rather  showed  that  former  restreynt  &  feare  had  kepte  them  to 
superstition,  then  that  they  were  vnwilling  to  leaue  it  of./ 

*3-  You  mistake  yf  you  thinke  they  were  all  taken  vppon  the  acte  of 
authoritye  to  be  members  of  the  Churches,  but  partlye  vpon 
their  first  covenant  &  then  vpon  their  submission  to  the  lawe 
and  reall  profession,  which  whether  it  were  voluntarye  or  noe, 
could  not  be  iudged,  nor  can  you  tell./ 

"4.  Wheras  you  sale  it  was  accordyng  to  the  perambulation  of  the 
parish,  I  answere  you  that  though  a  man  was  taken  as  belonging 
to  the  congregation  of  such  a  parish,  yett  this  alone  made  no 
man  a  member  or  comunicant,  but  his  auntient  birthright  and 
his  willingnes  to  comunicate./ 

*5'  Whereas  you  saie,  that  they  still  were  for  the  most  parte  noteore- 
ous,  ignorant,  and  prophane  persons,  you  speake  at  randome, 
but  where  you  saie  it  hath  ever  since  the  first  mouldyng  and  yet 
doth  consiste  for  a  greate  part  of  such  as  with  whome  the  Lord 
neuer  entred  covenant  (yf  you  speake  of  the  external  covenant 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


27 


it  is  fals  of  all,  for  they  all  haue  the  covenant  of  God  as  all  Israeli 
had,  Rom.  9.  4;  yf  of  secret  or  intemall  covenant  it  is  imperti- 
nent, yett  herein,  besides  that  you  are  very  presumptuous  in  that 
censure  and  forgett  what  apparent  faultes  male  be  in  the  true 
sayntes,/  you  do  crosse  your  self  in  confessing  a  greate  part  of 
that  congregation  to  be  such  as  with  whome  God  is  in  covenant, 
whoe  yet  externallye  haue  noe  other  covenant  with  God  then  all 
the  rest  prof  esse  to  hould,  and  withall  you  insinuate  a  grosse 
error,  namelye  that  the  socyetye  of  those  which  are  vnsanctefied 
doth  disanull  the  covenant  of  God  with  such  as  are  sanctefied, 
as  yf  forsooth  theise  were  not  a  people  gathered  vnto  God  in 
specyall  covenant  because  there  be  among  them  such  as  are  nott 
indeed  in  covenant  with  God  but  in  showe  onelye  or  exter- 
nallye)/. 

Here  also  you  fall  agayne  into  your  ould  pitt  while  you  confound 
the  consideration  of  extemall  members  with  the  condicion  of 
intemall  or  sincere  by  which  rule  you  male  condemne  all  the 
Churches  that  ever  were,  yf  anye  hipocrites  be  among  them, 
seyng  God  neuer  entered  into  inward  covenant  with  hipocrites./ 
Wherefore,  when  as  you  conclude  that  St  Andrewes  hath  neyther 
the  matter  of  a  Church,  which  is  sayntes  by  calling,  nor  true 
forme,  which  is  covenant  with  the  Lord,  and  therefore  can  be 
noe  true  Churche,/  you  haue  onelye  taught  your  toungue  to 
slander  a  famous  Church  of  Christe  which  hath  manie  reall 
sayntes  in  it,  and  none  but  doe  professe  sanctetye  &  houldeth 
that  same  covenant  with  God  professedlye  which  Christ  hath 
sealed  with  his  blood,  beleiving  and  professing  that  fayth  which 
you  dare  not  as  yett  gainsaye./ 

I  haue  allreadye  shewed  the  ground  of  this  error  that  you  doe 
falselye  define  the  essencyall  forme  of  a  visible  Church  as  you 
did  before  the  matter  of  the  visible  Churches./ 
I  therefore  invert  this  argument  vpon  you  thus:  St  Andrewes 
hath  the  matter  of  a  true  Churche,  which  is  men  called  to  be 
seyntes,  &  the  true  forme,  which  is  the  profession  of  covenant 
with  God  by  lesus  Christe  accordyng  to  the  Gospell.  Therefore 
it  is  a  true  visible  Church  from  which  noe  man  can  separate 
without  sinne.  Looke  you  therefore  to  your  reckoning,  for  it  is 
fearfuU./ 


[Yet  saith  your 
Mr  Clifton,  page 
22:  We  count 
these  that  are 
hypocrites  &  doe 
outwardly  profess 
the  faith  to  be  of 
the  couenant, 
and,  page  80, 
holy  in  regard 
of  the  couenant.] 


28 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


U  Argument]    The  fourth  argument  foUowes./ 

Robinson         No  comunion  male  be  had  in  a  devised  worship  or  liturgy e,  b'c./ 

Answer  You  make  your  propositions  verye  loose  &  ambiguous,  which 
must  be  want  of  iudgment  or  of  conscyence./  For  worship  and 
liturgie  or  seruice  in  vse  of  speech  signifies  sometyme  the  es- 
sencyall  actes  of  God's  worship  or  thinges  wherein  we  doe  es- 
teeme  God  to  be  worshipped,  in  which  sense  all  devised  worship 
is  sinnefull;  sometyme  by  worship  is  meant  the  outward  fashion, 
or  carriage  of  such  dutyes  as  belong  to  the  worship  of  God,  in 
which  thinges  the  devise  of  men  is  not  simplie  excluded  but 
lymitted./ 

Nowe,  yf  your  proposition  be  vnderstood  of  worship  properlye 
so  called,  it  is  true,  but  then  youre  minor  is  false  of  the  Churches 
of  England./  If  it  be  vnderstood,  as  you  seeme  to  vnderstand 
it,  of  anie  externall  forme  or  order  of  disposeinge  the  actions 
perteyninge  to  God's  worship,  it  is  a  fantasticall  opinion,  con- 
trarye  to  the  iudgment  of  all  the  Churches  of  God  &  their  practize 
in  all  ages  and  to  the  scriptures./ 

But  come  wee  to  the  proofes,  by  which  you  would  proue  the 
Churches  of  England  to  be  constituted  in  a  false  worship  of 
God./ 


[jEsterg.  27.  28 
I.  Chron.  24.  3. 
with  25.  6.  et  2, 
Chron.  23.  18, 
the  end  of  it.] 


Robinson    First  (you  saye)  much  of  the  matter  of  the  service  hooke  is  erroneous./ 

Answer  Perhaps  you  meane  some  translations  or  some  apocriphall 
chapters  which  yett  noe  more  concludes  a  false  worship  of  God, 
then  when  a  man  missealledges  a  text  or  mistakes  the  sense.  All 
the  booke  is  not  properlie  worship,  and  therefore  there  male  be 
errors  in  the  booke,  which  are  not  errors  in  God's  worship./ 
Besides  that  every e  error  in  worship  makes  not  a  false  worship 
seeyng  there  is  noe  sinne,  but  it  is  some  error./ 
That  all  the  booke  is  not  properlye  dyvine  worship  you  confesse 
in  charging  it  to  conteyne  some  thinges  in  their  nature  cyvill,  as 
burialles  and  manages,  which  yett  maie  (in  that  vse  the  Church 
principallye  intends  which  is  reuerentlye  to  blesse  mariage,  &  to 
make  some  vse  vnto  the  lyving  of  the  buryall  of  the  dead)  haue 
some  thing  anexed  to  them  that  is  devine.  Eatyng  our  meate 
is  a  cyvill  action,  but  gyveing  of  thankes  is  a  sacred./ 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


29 


Mr  Robinson 


The  churching  of  women,  or  thankesgyuing  as  it  is  vsed  with  vs, 
cannott  be  called  lewish,  nor  is  (otherwise  then  in  the  vse  of 
prayers)  esteemed  anye  worship  of  God./ 
Biddyng  of  holy  dayes  is  noe  parte  of  dy  vine  service,  noe  more  then 
the  pubHshing  the  banes  of  manage,  nor  is  the  keeping  of  them 
popish  that  is  to  the  honor  of  the  seintes,  but  of  God  onelie,  nor 
doth  oure  Church  esteeme  the  obseruation  of  such  dayes  anye 
parte  of  God's  worship,  but  a  thinge  indifferent.  This  rabble  of  im- 
pertinent thinges  in  which  your  conscyence  knowes  the  Churches 
place  noe  worhip  serue  but  for  faceyng,  wherein  yf  the  Churches 
be  encombred  withe  some  vnnecessarye  fashions,  it  is  a  defecte 
in  her  order,  but  yett  it  is  nott  in  the  proper  partes  of  God's 
worship./ 

To  proue  a  devised  worship  you  sale  God  hath  commanded  noe 
booke  but  the  ould  and  newe  Testament  to  be  vsed  in  his  Church, 
what  then  ?  Therefore,  his  worship  maie  not  be  placed  in  the  Answer 
vses  of  anye  other  booke,  as  it  is  an  other  booke  followes  well, 
but  therefore  noe  booke  elles  maie  be  vsed  in  the  tyme  of  wor- 
shipping God  will  nott  foUowe,  noe  more  then  to  sale  God  hath 
commanded  nothing  but  water  for  baptisme,  bread  and  wine  for 
the  Lord's  supper,  therefore  to  command  that  the  water  be  in  a 
bason  or  font  brought  into  the  Church,  the  bread  on  a  plate,  the 
wine  in  a  siluer,  glassen,  or  earthen  cuppe  is  a  will  worship,  as 
indeed  it  were,  yf  anye  man  placed  the  worship  of  God  therin. 
Mr  Smyth  by  the  same  ground  hath  cast  out  all  translated 
scriptures  from  beyng  vsed  in  the  tyme  of  God's  worship,  you 
shall  doe  well  to  goe  to  him  or  quite  his  grounds,  vnles  you  can 
proue  that  God  commaunded  a  translacyon  to  be  vsed  in  his 
Churche  more  then  a  forme  of  prayer./ 

God  was  and  maie  be  purelie  worshipped  without  a  prescript    Mr  Robinson 
forme,  ergo,  this  is  a  devised  worship./  ■3- 

Good,  yf  we  beleeued  that  in  this  verye  forme  consistes  the  wor-  Answer 
ship  of  God,  elles  ridiculous;  for  eyther  maie  be  where  neyther 
is  necessarye./  God  was  and  maie  be  trulye  worshipped  without 
anye  particuler  place  sett  aparte  theretoe.  Therefore  to  appoint 
a  place  for  it  is  to  devise  a  worship.  Indeed,  to  thinke  the  wor- 
ship bettered  by  the  place  it  self  were  to  devise  a  worship./ 


30 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


And  ho  we  easily  e  is  this  to  be  inverted  ?  The  holye  prophettes 
and  Churches  of  God  haue  purelye  worshipped  God  vsyng  pre- 
script formes  of  prayers,  as  doe  all  reformed  Churches  (I  count 
not  you  that  are  in  mutenye  against  all  reformed  Churches)  of 
Christendome  at  this  daye.  Therefore,  a  prescript  forme  of 
prayer  is  not  a  devised  or  will  worship  eo  nomine  because  it  is 
prescribed./ 

Mr  Robinson         ^^^  service  booke  queftchetk  the  spirrit  of  prayer.    Ergo,  it  is  a 
*4.  devised  worship./ 

Answer    Indeed,  yf  it  doe,  it  is  a  cause,  but  not  soe  yf  it  doe  it  as  an  oc- 
casion onelye,  by  reason  of  oure  preiudice  or  negligence. 

]\Ir  Robinson  But  why  doth  it  quench  the  spiritt  of  prayer,  which  God  gyves  to 
the  officers  of  his  Church  ?  because  (forsooth  it  taketh  vp  the  place 
and  worke  of  the  spiritt,  whose  office  is  to  teach  vs  what  to  praye  ac- 
cordyng  to  oure  present  necessities.  Rom.  8.  26.  i.  Cor.  12.  7./ 
Answer  Howe  takes  it  vp  the  place  and  worke  of  the  spirit  ?  what  by 
ministring  vnto  vs  without  studye  the  matter  of  oure  requestes 
or  the  manner  of  vtteryng  them,  that  oure  affections  might  be 
the  more  at  large  and  intentiue  ?/  Howe  did  God  teach  the 
lewes,  howe  did  our  Lord  teache  his  disciples  to  praye  ?  Did 
God's  spiritt  teach  meanes  of  crosseyng  or  of  serving  it  self./ 
To  saye  Christ  taught  not  his  disciples  a  sett  forme  of  prayer 
which  they  were  (though  not  alone  or  allwayes)  to  vse,  is  one  of 
the  most  fantasticall  conceytes  that  ever  came  in  anye  man's 
*Luke  II.  2.  brayne,  considering  how  clearlye  the  Evangelist  notes  the  occa- 
sion gyven  &  the  answere  thus,  saye  Oure  Father,  not  thus,  sale  to 
your  heauenlye  Father,  or  praye  to  him  that  his  name  maye  be 
hallowed,  &c.,  but  puttyng  the  forme  of  peticion  into  their 
mouth  he  bids  them  speake  thus  vnto  God,  Our  Father  which 
arte  in  heauen,  &c./ 

Tell  me  not  that  there  is  noe  comparison  betwixt  Christes  prayer 
&  ours,  least  I  tell  you  no  more  is  there  betwixt  his  &  yours  con- 
ceyued.  The  question  is  not  of  the  excellencye  of  the  prayers  but 
of  their  prescription  or  stintednes./ 

Moreover,  yf  the  worke  of  the  Spiritt  be  hindred  by  a  prescript 
forme  of  words,  then  by  all  the  publike  prayers  of  the  pastors 
is  the  spiritt  of  prayer  hindred  in  the  people,  while  to  them  is  the 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  3 1 

forme  of  prayer  prescribed  in  as  much  as  the  ministers'  wordes 
h'mittes  their  spiritt  in  prayer./ 

Answere  me  nott  that  this  is  God's  ordinance,  for  yf  you  doe, 
you  then  confes  that  God  hath  ordeyned  his  people  a  stinted 
forme  of  prayer,  while  they  all  are  to  attend  what  one  speaketh 
and  are  prescribed  what  to  praye  for  &  in  what  words  not  by 
the  spiritt  in  them,  but  by  the  mouth  of  their  minister./ 
Yf  you  were  not  contentious,  you  might  see  that  all  publike 
prayer  is  limitted  and  stinted  to  all  the  congregacyon,  saue  onlie 
to  him  that  concejoieth  it,  wherin  yf  the  Church  of  God  maye 
by  the  Spiritt  of  God  make  her  prayers,  then  is  not  the  worke  of 
the  Spiritt  hindred  by  the  prescription  or  limitacyon  of  a  sett 
forme./ 

Doth  not  Mr.  Robinson  yett  knowe  that  the  act  of  prayer,  as  it 
is  a  spirituall  worship,  lyes  not  in  the  forme  of  words,  whether 
vttered  out  of  present  conceyt  or  written  out  of  former  conceyte, 
but  in  the  intencyon  of  the  hearte  sanctefied  by  fayth  presenting 
the  requestes  vnto  God  with  feeling,  which  intention  of  the  spiritt 
takes  neyther  help  or  hurte  by  the  difference  of  a  present  or 
former  conception  of  words  ceteris  paribus./  And  verely  as  it 
were  a  superstition  to  place  the  verye  acte  of  devine  worship 
(properlye  taken)  in  such  or  such  a  forme  of  wordes  written,  so 
is  it  a  like  supersticyon  to  hould  that  God  cannott  be  worshipped 
in  anye  forme  of  words  conformable  to  the  scriptures./  For 
eyther  of  these  doth  alike  place  the  worship  of  God  wherein  he 
hath  not  placed  it.  So  you  teach  a  devised  worship  of  God  in 
prayers,  &  not  the  Church  of  England,  while  you  teach  that  God 
cannott  as  truelye  be  worshipped  in  a  forme  of  prayer  penned 
as  in  a  forme  of  prayer  immediatly  conceyued,  whereas  the 
Churches  of  England  houldes  them  indifferent,  prescribyng  some 
prayers  and  leaving  others  to  the  minister's  abilitie,  discrecyon, 
&  present  occasions  according  (therin)  to  the  scriptures,  which 
giues  vs  examples  of  both  kindes  vsed  of  God's  people,  and  al- 
lowed of  God  himself./ 

You  speake  comonhe  of  the  spiritt  in  prayer,  as  yf  the  worke  of 
the  spiritt  therein  were  some  extraordinarye  inspiracyon  or  rav- 
ishment like  those  of  the  prophettes  &  not  an  habituall  grace 
sanctefying  our  intencyon,  memoryes,  iudgment  and  affections, 


32 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


»  Numb.  6 

&c.  Ps.  92. 

102. 

*»  Luke  II.  2. 


23, 
Ps. 


'5. 

*Mr  Robinson. 

5.  Argument 

*Answer 


which  yf  it  be  your  meaning  to  doe,  you  shall  doe  well  to  foresee 
the  spiritt  of  Annabaptistrye  to  be  entring  vpon  you,  but  yf  you 
meane  by  the  spiritt  no  other  then  that  grace  which  sanctefyeth 
and  directeth  our  naturall  powers  in  that  worke,  then  doe  not 
thinke  the  spiritt  to  be  eyther  impeached,  disparaged,  or  hindred 
by  anye  suche  externall  meanes  as  help  our  invencyon  or  mem- 
oryes.  Howe  euer  noe  such  outward  helps  can  sufi&cientlye 
teach  our  heartes  to  praie,  for  that  onelye  doth  the  spiritt  of 
God./ 

You  ad  that  prayer  must  he  accordyng  to  the  present  necessityes,  & 
I  tell  you  that  the  comon  prayers  of  the  Churche  of  England  are 
for  such  thinges  as  we  ought  to  thinke  necessarye  to  be  craued 
for  our  selues  or  some  other  of  our  brethren  at  all  tymes./ 
And  as  for  extraordinarye  occasions  the  minister  is  left  at  Ubertye 
to  meet  with  them./ 

Lett  me,  therefore,  conclude  that  seyng  God  himself  ordeyned 
some  sett  formes  of  prayer  to  be  vsed,='  &  Christ  ^  taught  his 
disciples  a  sett  forme  of  prayer,  and  all  pubUke  prayers  are  to  the 
people  sett  formes  of  prayers,  sett  formes,  therefore,  hinder  not 
but  rather  serue  the  grace  of  God's  spirit  in  their  heartes.  Fy- 
nallye,  seeing  all  Churches  of  God  vsed  sett  forme  of  prayers,  it 
is  a  strange  fantasticall  pride  in  you  to  condemne  all  the  Churches 
of  God  of  false  worship,  and  a  false  worship  among  your  selues 
to  place  the  worship  of  God  in  one  onelye  kinde  &  manner  of 
prayers  which  God  himself  hath  left  indifferent  to  that  waye  or  to 
another,  provided  allwayes  that  the  externall  manner  be  ani- 
mated &  quickned  by  his  spiritt  in  oure  heartes,  without  which 
all  kinde  of  prayer  conceyued  or  written  are  to  vs  dead  &  vayne, 
to  God  vnpleasant  &  vnsauorye./ 

//  is  not  lawfull  to  comunicate  in  anye  other  ministerye  then 
Christ  hath  left  in  his  Church  which  I  thus  manifest. 

Your  maior  is  ambiguous,  true  in  some  sense,  false  in  some  other, 
for  yf  by  other  ministerye  you  meane  essencyallye  &  intencyon- 
allye  an  other  ministerye  then  Christ  hath  left  in  his  Churche, 
it  is  true;  but  yf  you  meane  (as  it  seemes  you  doe)  by  another 
ministerye,  a  ministerye  of  anye  other  fashion  in  the  manner  of 
calling,  title,  imployment,  or  mayntenance,  then  is  it  false,  your 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


33 


proofes  eyther  needles  or  forceles,  —  needles,  yf  you  would  proue 
that  which  noe  man  denyes,  forceles  yf  you  would  proue  that  a 
man  maie  not  comunicate  with  anye  other  ministerye  then  such 
as  is  in  all  pointes  prescribed  by  Christe./  But  lett  vs  see  your 
proofes  whose  want  of  weight  you  supplye  with  number./  First 
you  saye: 

The  ministerye  of  the  newe  Testament  is  a  parte  of  Christes    *Mr  Robinson 
Testament  which  he  hath  sealled  with  his  blood,  and  therefore 
nothing  maie  be  added  to  it  or  taken  from  it.    Gall.  j.  y;  Heb. 
9-  I?-/ 
Your  places  out  of  Gal.  3.  15  (for  you  misnumbred  the  verse)  &    *Answer 
Heb.  9.  17  proue  that  God's  covenant  is  not  to  be  disanulled,  but 
you  should  haue  proved  that  every  ministerye  or  kinde  of  seruice 
in  the  Church  with  all  the  circumstances  thereof  are  prescribed 
in  Christes  Testament,  wherto  you  bring  nothing  but  a  bare 
assertion ;  yett  yf  you  had  proued  so  much,  you  had  not  proued 
what  you  vndertooke,  namelye,  that  it  is  not  lawfull  to  comuni- 
cate (suppose  not  in  lawfull  thinges)  with  a  ministerye  which  is 
in  anye  pointe  sinnefullye  vndertaken.    Howe  euer  the  sinne  is 
nott  to  be  allowed./ 
Your  second  proof e  is  this: 

It  is  a  parte  of  Christes  kinglye  office  to  appoint  the  officers  and    *]vir  Robinson 
ministers  of  his  kingdome./ 

What  then  ?  Therefore,  noe  kinde  of  officers  maye  be  appointed  *Answer 
in  the  Church  but  by  Christ  in  his  owne  person.  Will  that 
followe  ?  Or  by  Christes  imediate  revellation.  Will  that  foUowe? 
Verylye  not  soe,  but  that,  therefore,  noe  office  maie  be  sett  vppe 
contraryant  to  those  that  he  hath  established  &  rules  which  he 
hath  gyven,  for  whoe  dares  saye  that  the  Church  of  Christe  doth 
not  at  all  communicate  f  the  princelye  power  of  her  Lord  ?  Or 
whoe  dares  condemne  the  primitiue  Churches  for  helpinge  them- 
selues  with  some  kinde  of  seruantes  which  were  not  prescribed, 
as  that  of  the  readers  &  acolathes  howe  ever  it  turned  to  abuse  ?/ 


[fYour  Mr  Ains- 
worth  ^  affirmes 
that  it  doth.] 


1  This  was  probably  the  way  in  which  the  third  person  originally  spelled  Ains- 
worth's  name.  The  name,  however,  as  thus  written,  has  been  crossed  out,  and 
"  Haneswoorth  "  substituted  for  it  in  a  fourth  handwriting. 


34  AN  ANSWER  TO 

Butt  take  it  that  there  is  a  sinne  committed  in  the  erection  or 
alteracion  of  the  ministerye  in  anie  pointe,  as  there  is  in  the  choise 
of  anye  other  kinde  of  magistrates  then  such  as  God  prescribed, 
will  it  foUowe  that  men  maye  not  comunicate  with  them  ?  If 
soe,  then  will  it  also  foUowe  that  a  Christian  maie  not  lawfullye 
comunicate  with  a  covetous  or  vnrighteous  magistrate,  which 
beyng  true  in  respecte  of  his  faulte,  is  not  soe  in  respect  of  his 
office./    Your  third  is  this: 

*Mr  Robinson  It  was  not  lawfull  for  anye  vnder  the  lawe  to  minister  before  the 
Lord  save  the  Levites,  nor  to  comunicate  with  anye  other  soe 
ministring.     i.  King.  12.  ji.    2.  Cron.  11.  ig  &'  26.  18.  ig./ 

*Answer  Your  place  out  of  the  2.  Cron.  11.  19  is  by  some  forgetfuUnes 
vtterlye  mistaken.  The  others  proue  well  that  none  but  the 
Levites  were  capeable  of  the  Preisthood,  but  this  is  vtterlye  be- 
side the  question,  which  is  not  whether  a  man  maye  comunicate 
with  such  a  person  as  is  vtterlye  vncapeable  of  the  ministerye, 
as  all  were  then  of  the  Preisthood  but  the  Levites,  but  whether 
a  man  sinnes  in  comunicatyng  with  a  man  in  excercyse  of  his 
ministerye,  which  hath  beene  vndertaken  or  imposed  with  some 
sinne./ 

You  confound  a  nulletie  &  a  defecte,  as  a  man  should  saye  the 
mariage  which  a  man  makes  with  his  owne  sister  is  vnlawfuU 
and  voyd,  therefore  also  the  mariage  which  a  man  makes  with  an 
vnbeleeving  woman.  One  of  these  makes  a  nulletye  of  the  act, 
the  other  a  great  fault,  but  not  a  nulletye./ 
Make  your  comparison  even  and  it  will  teach  you  better.  For 
lett  the  case  be  of  a  Levite  or  preist  that  otherwise  liveth  then 
God  prescribed,  or  that  was  not  sanctefied  legallye  accordyng  to 
the  purification  of  the  Sanctuary e,  or  not  learned  in  the  lawes 
of  God  as  he  ought,  did  the  people  sinne  in  comunicating  with  his 
ministerye,  yea  or  noe  ?  If  not,  as  you  must  confes,  seyng  the 
prophettes  and  even  Christ  himself  did  comunicate  in  the  holye 
thinges  of  God  when  the  preistes  were  miserablye  out  of  square, 
then  consider  that,  Ukewise,  the  Lord's  people  maye  comunicate 
in  his  worship  without  sinne  in  such  a  ministerye  as  is  sinne- 
fully  admitted  or  administreth  sinnefullye  in  some  personall 
respectes./ 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


35 


To  this  third  you  ioyne  an  amplification,  that 

As  Christe  was  not  lesse  faythfull  or  carefull,  b°c.,  then  Moses,    *Mr  Robinson 
I.  Cor.  12.  5.  Heb.  j.  i.  2,  so  neyther  is  he  worthye  of  lesse  honor 
in  his  ordinances,  b°c.,  in  the  administration  of  his  kingdome, 
which  is  a  kingdome  that  cannott  be  shaken.   Heb.  3.  3^  12.  23. 
28./    I.  Tim.  5.  22./ 


All  this  beyng  graunted  wins  nothing  to  your  cause  for  neyther 
doth  this  proue  that  Christ  hath  strictlye  prescribed  all  circum- 
stances touching  the  ministerye  of  the  newe  Testament,  seeing 
Moses  did  it  not  (for  the  orders  of  the  Levites  in  the  ould  were 
otherwise  ranged  af terwardes  by  David  ^) ,  nor  yf  this  were 
proued  would  anye  thing  followe  but  that  there  were  a  sinne 
committed  in  not  observing  in  everye  point  the  patterne,  not 
that  they  which  partake  in  the  ministration  should  partake  in  the 
sinne  of  the  minister,  which  point  is  so  absurd  as  yf  you  will  vp- 
hould  it  you  must  also  graunt  that  whatsoeuer  sinne  the  minister 
committes  in  the  worke  of  ministration  the  people  which  com- 
municate with,  him  must  alsoe  partake.  For  yf  his  entrance  into 
the  function  shall  defile  them,  much  more  his  execution,  seeyng 
they  ioyne  with  him  in  this  worke  and  not  allwayes  in  the  other./ 
Finallye,  the  faythfullnes  of  Christ  in  his  house  lyes  not  in  pre- 
scribyng  particulerly  everye  cyrcumstance  &  rite  as  Moses  did, 
but  in  doeyng  and  prescribyng  so  much  as  he  had  in  comission, 
that  is,  those  thinges  which  doe  in  the  Newe  Testament  belong 
essencially  to  God's  worship,  as  did  those  particuler  prescriptes 
of  Moses  in  the  Ould ;  I  thinke  verylye  that  they  are  wide  of  the 
marke  which  drawe  the  comparsion  (as  some  doe)  to  all  externall 
thinges  f  or  orders  in  the  newe  Testament,  as  yf  those  also  were  as 
essencyall  partes  of  the  newe  Tabernacle  as  the  beesome,  ash- 
pans,  &c.,  were  of  the  ould./ 

It  is  true  that  you  saye  Christes  kingdome  cannott  be  shaken, 
but  it  is  absurd  to  place  that  kingdome  of  Christ  (as  you  doe)  in 
externall  &  varyable  cyrcumstances,  wherin  yf  the  kingdome  of 
Christ  had  stood,  it  must  haue  beene  shaken  all  to  fitters  longe 
agoe./ 

Your  place  of  i.  Tim.  5.  22,  Laie  not  hands  rashlye  on  anye  man, 
&'c.,  neyther  be  partaker  of  other  men's  sinnes,  comes  in  out  of 


"Answer 


C*  I.  Chron.  2^. 
24  et  24  chapters] 


Ct  This  your  Mr 
Clifton  is  forced 
to  confess  in  de- 
fending the  bap- 
tisme  of  infants 
which  Christ  hath 
not  by  name 
praescribed  as 
Moses  did  cir- 
cumcision who 
showes  that 
Christes  faith- 
fulnes  in  the 
house  of  God  lyes 
not  in  that  par- 
ticular prasscrip- 
tion  of  all  thinges, 
but  in  performing 
all  thinges  which 
Moses  and  the 
prophets  had  sayd 
should  come  to 
passe.   Page  115  [?1 
with  190  & 
198.  I.] 


36 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


square  to  proue  the  kingdome  of  Christe  to  be  vnshaken,  but  yf 
you  meane  to  applye  the  latter  parte  of  it  (neyther  be  partaker 
of  other  men's  sinnes)  to  this  case  of  comunicatyng  with  a  min- 
ister in  whose  manner  of  ordination  there  hath  beene  sinne  com- 
mitted, you  are  much  miscaryed,  for  though  no  man  could  laye 
on  his  hands  &  approue  a  sinnefull  ordination  without  sinne,  in  as 
much  as  his  consent  was  vnto  the  sinnefull  worke,  yett  a  man 
might  lawfullye  comunicate  with  that  person  in  another  worke 
which  is  not  sinnefull,  yea  &  disallowe  his  sinne  in  the  entrance, 
even  as  a  man  maye  lawfullye  communicate  at  the  Lord's  table 
with  an  angrye  or  a  covetous  minister  whose  wrathfullnes  or 
covetousnes  he  maie  not  approue,  seing  God  forbids  them./ 
•^JMr  Robinson  Fourthlye  (you  saye),  the  ministerye  is  a  meanes  of  God's  worship 
and  so  vnalterable./ 
♦Answer  I  answere  both  the  antecedent  and  consequent  are  questionable. 
For  yf  you  meane  that  the  verye  externall  manner  of  calUng, 
names,  maintenance,  and  such  like,  is  a  meanes  of  God's  worship 
(vnles  you  vnderstand  a  meanes  remote),  it  is  false  &  of  such 
thinges  is  the  question  betwixt  vs./ 

And  when  you  saye  therefore  vnalterable,  your  inference  is  doubt- 
full,  for  not  everye  meanes  of  worship  but  these  that  be  immedi- 
ate meanes  &  prescribed  of  God  as  meanes,  are  soe  far  forth  vn- 
alterable that  without  sinne  they  cannott  be  altered,  and  so  is 
the  ministerye  of  the  newe  Testament.f/ 

But  what  yf  one  graunted  you  as  much  in  the  ordinacyon  as  in 
the  execution  &  in  the  circumstances  as  in  the  substance  ?  All 
that  you  could  winne  is  that  the  Church  sinned  in  altering,  but 
not  that  one  might  not  comunicate  with,  such  a  ministracyon, 
vnles  you  will  sale  that  we  cannott  comunicate  in  anye  thing  with 
that  Church  of  God  that  sinneth  against  anye  ordinance  of  Christ, 
which  will  put  you  to  separate  from  all,  yea  from  your  owne, 
ministerye  vnles  you  be  without  sinne  in  the  execution  of  it./ 

Fiftlye,  Christ  (sale  you)  hath  promised  noe  blessing  to  anye 

other  ordinance  then  his  owne.    Math.  28.  20;  Eph.  4.  11.  12. 

13-1 

♦Answer    If  the  ordinances  of  the  Church  answere  the  square  of  generall 

rules,  they  are  in  some  sence  Christes  and  soe  capeable  of  a  bless- 


Q  Namely  as  it 
is  ordayned  of 
God  to  be  an 
immediate  meanes 
of  vvoorshipp 
in  prayer,  in 
preaching,  and 
administration  of 
sacraments,  it  is 
vnalterable,  that 
is  without  sinne 
cannot  be  altered.] 

*Mr  Robinson 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


37 


ing,  because  suteable  to  that  which  he  hath  commaunded.  Where- 
fore, yf  you  meane  by  ordinance  a  particular  prescription,  you 
are  abused./ 

But  graunt  your  assertion,  what  followes  ?  but  that,  therefore, 
so  farre  forth  as  the  ministers  are  not  the  ordinance  of  Christe 
there  is  no  blessing  promised  that  Christ  hath  blessed  the  min- 
isterye  of  England,  dare  you  denye  ?/ 

But  in  the  pointes  of  comunication  with  them  in  prayer,  doc- 
trine, &  sacramentes,  they  be  the  ordinances  of  Christe,  how- 
euer  in  manner,  or  cyrcumstances  of  ordinacyon,  or  calling  not 
soe.  You  doe  throughout  in  this  question  confound  the  essencyall 
propertyes  with  necessarye  cyrcumstances,''  as  one  should  thus 
dispute:  He  that  hath  not  all  the  essencyall  partes  of  a  man  i: 
not  man,  therefore  he  that  hath  not  two  legs  and  two  armes  is 
noe  man,  for  even  as  the  legs  or  the  armes  are  partes  of  a  man 
not  essencyall,  but  rather  perficient,  so  are  those  cyrcumstances 
of  the  ministery  which  you  stand  on./ 


Lastlye  (you  saie),  the  officers  which  Christ  hath  placed  ar 
sufficyent  for  the  worke  of  the  ministerye  b°  the  edificacion  of  the 
bodye  till  the  bodye  be  perfect,  as  appeareth  in  the  place  last 
named,  Eph.  4.  ii.  12.  ij,  ^  so  must  feed  theflocke  till  Christes 
appearance,     i.  Peter.  5. 1.2. 4./ 

And  how  then  ?    Therefore  it  is  not  lawfull  to  comunicate  with    *Answer 
the  pastor  of  St.  Andrewes,  for  your  question  is  of  him./ 
But  you  meane  in  respect  of  the  episcopall  authoritie  wheretoe 
the  pastor  of  St.  Andrewe  is  subiect.    Now,  yf  your  place  proue 
the  Bishop  to  be  an  vnnecessarye  addicyon,  doth  it  therefore 
proue  the  pastor  or  teacher  there  to  be  vnlawfull  ?  what  logick 
call  you  this  ?    Yett  doth  not  your  place  proue  the  Bishop  to  be 
vnnecessary,  vnles  it  proue  also  the  laie  elder  &  deacon  to  be  vn- 
necessarye, neyther  of  which  are  eyther  named  or  signified  in  that 
place  where  you  saye  all  the  needfull  officers  are  expressed  ?/ 
Indeed,  of  these  named  some  were,  some  are  necessarye  of  simple 
necessitye  &  must  be,  but  that  there  male  be  noe  paiticuler  man- 
ner for  disposing  &  orderyng  of  these  beyond  themselues  will  not 
followe,  vnles  we  shall  also  cut  of  the  authoritye  of  the  particular 
congregacyons  aswell  as  of  Bishops  or  sinods  in  Church  governe- 


\y  Accidentall 
corruptions 
mixed  with 
baptisme  in 
poperie  destroyed 
not  the  substance, 
saith  your  Mr ' 
Clifton.     Page 
171  et  207.3 

**  Mr  Robinson 


38 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


ments,  or  saye  that  the  externall  discipline  makes  not  to  edifica- 
tion of  the  bodye  of  Christ./ 

You  erre,  therefore,  in  takyng  that  to  be  simplye,  absolutelye, 
&  onelye  ascribed  to  these  ofi&cers  which  is  but  principallye  or 
specyallye  attributed  theretoe,  for  the  Scripture  doth  also  re- 
quire other  helps,  as  namelye  priuate  admonicyon  of  others,  & 
oure  owne  diligence  for  the  edification  of  the  bodye  of  Christe. 
The  place  of  i.  Pet.  5.  i.  2t  4  is  ill  aleadged  to  proue  that  pastors 
&  teachers  &  elders  must  feed  the  flocke  till  Christe  come,  al- 
though the  thing  be  true./ 

Thus  haue  I  gone  through  all  your  6.  reasons  which  proue  not 
that  everye  alteracyon  in  cyrcumstances  concerning  the  minis- 
terye  is  sinnefuU,  much  lesse  that  to  comunicate  in  God's  true 
worship  with  such  a  ministerye  as  is  (in  some  respecte)  sinnefull 
is  an  vnlawfull  thing./ 

Now  followes  your  minor,  that  is, 
*  Mr  Robinson  That  the  ministerye  of  St  Andrewes  in  Norwich  is  another  min- 
isterye then  that  which  Christe  hath  left  in  his  Church,/  for  con- 
firmacyon  wherof  you  first  premise,  that  the  ordinarye  minis- 
terye which  Christe  hath  gyven  &  the  Appostles  ordeyned  in  every 
particular  Church,  are  Bishops  or  elders  &  deacons.  Act 
6.  I.  2.  J.  4.  5.  6.  &"  4.  2j.  b°  20.  ly;  Phil.  i.  i;  i.  Tim.  i.  3; 
Titus  I.  J.  4.  5,  6fc./ 

This  you  confirme  by  three  argumentes: 
*Mr  Robinson  i.    First,  that  these  Christe  hath  appoynted,  the  holye  Ghost 

made,  and  the  Appostles  ordeyned,  and  so  without  the  same  or  a 
greate  power  they  maie  not  be  reuersed. 

2.  Secondlye,  that  for  these  alone  and  their  choise  the  Lord  hath 
taken  order,     i  Tim.  j;   Tit.  i. 

3.  Thirdlye,  these  alone  are  sufficyentfor  the  dispensation  of  the 
holye  thinges  of  the  Church,  the  elders  of  the  spirituall  thinges  for 
the  soule,  the  deacons  of  bodylye  thinges  for  the  bodye  or  outward 
man.  I 

Then  you  inferre 

That  the  Church  of  England  reteyneth  onlye  the  name  of  deacon- 
rye,  establishing  a  most  counterfeyte  b'  adulterate  office  voider  it./ 
2.    St.  Andrewes  Church  is  not  capeable  of  the  true  office  of 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  39 

deaconrye  {which  all  true  Churches  are)  neyther  hath  it  vse,  or  it 
maie  he  neuer  had  or  shall  haue,  of  the  office  of  deaconrye  estab- 
lished in  the  Church  of  England,  as  all  true  Churches  haue  of  all 
true  offices  when  the  Lord  afordeth  fitt  men;  so  that  eyther  the 
Church  or  the  office  {or  rather  both)  must  be  of  men  b'  not  of  God. 

I  perceyue  you  abandon  the  governing  elders  as  doth  Mr  Smyth, 
for  those  elders  or  Byshops  you  mencyon  were  preaching  elders, 
about  which  poynt  I  will  not  striue  against  your  iudgment.  You 
also  abandon  the  widdowes,  although  they  and  their  choise  also 
be  described  by  St  Paule,  which  you  denye  in  saying  that  for 
these  alone  and  their  choise  the  Lord  hath  taken  order./ 
The  ofl&ce  of  elders  is  not  onely  discribed  but  the  necessitye  of 
it  in  perpetuitye  for  the  gathering  together  or  consummation  of 
the  saintes.    Eph.  4./ 

Touching  the  deacon's  ofl&ce  maie  be  more  question,  in  asmuch 
as  it  is  not  properlye  a  spirituall  ministration  in  regard  whereof 
the  Appostles  put  it  of  from  themselues,  and  was  excercised  in 
nothinge  perteyning  to  the  edification  of  the  conscyence  in  god- 
lynes,  but  (as  you  saie)  for  the  owtward  man./ 
Secondlye,  howe  ever,  in  those  tymes  it  was  necessarye  the 
Churches  should  take  older  for  releife  of  theire  owne  poore  mem- 
bers, least  they  should  by  want  fall^  of  or  be  exposed  to  the  malice 
&  scorne  of  enemyes  while  yet  the  civill  sword  was  against  them; 
yett  when  God  adioyned  the  cyvill  power  to  the  Church,  the 
care  of  releeuing  the  poore  might  comodiouslye  fall  vnto  the 
cyvill  magistrate's  disposicion  for  anything  I  yett  knowe,  as  well 
as  vnto  Nehemia,  cap.  5.  Nehemia.  For  it  is  noe  proof e  of  per- 
petuitye that  it  was  then  ordeyned  for  the  Churches,  seyng  the 
collection  for  the  releife  of  Jerusalem  was  then  a  thing  ordeyned 
in  all  the  Churches  of  the  Gentiles  to  be  made  everye  Lord's 
daye,  &c.,  which  yet  no  man  will  saie  must  in  like  case  be  con- 
tinewed  in  such  manner  and  forme  but  that  princes  maie  com- 
maund  such  releife  of  their  subiectes./ 

So,  likewise,  the  Appostolicall  decrees  for  absteyning  from  blood 
&  strangled  was  made  by  the  holye  Ghost,  ordeyned  by  the  Ap- 
postles, yett  is  not  of  perpetuitye,  nor  yett  reversed  by  the  same 

1  MS.,  full. 


40  AN  ANSWER  TO 

or  greater  authoritye,  but  determind  (as  all  lawes  essencyallye 
doe)  with  the  reason  or  cause  of  makeyng  it./ 
I  speake  not  this  to  disproue  the  practize  of  the  Christian 
Churches  in  reteyning  still  such  an  office  as  very  comodious,  but 
sincerely  propound  what  I  thinke  touching  the  simple  necessitie 
of  it,  where  you  cannott  well  blame  men,  seyng  your  self  seeme 
to  haue  cutt  of  the  colledge  of  widdowes  which  yett  were  then  in 
vse  &  ordeyned,  as  well  as  the  deacons./ 

Wherefore,  passing  by  what  you  saie  of  another  kinde  of  deacon 
made  in  the  EngHsh  Churches,  &  what  you  ad  of  St.  Andrewes 
incapacitye  of  true  deacons,  I  content  my  self  to  saye  that  yf 
that  Church  doth  want  that  kinde  of  ministerye,  it  followes  not 
that  it  hath  another  kinde  of  ministerye  then  that  which  Christ 
hath  erected,  noe  more  then  it  followes  that  a  man  hath  stollen 
goods  in  his  house  because  he  wanteth  goods  of  his  owne  which 
ill  debtors  keepe  from  him.  Onely  when  as  you  saie,  that  all 
true  Churches  haue  vse  of  all  true  offices  when  the  Lord  afordeth  fitte 
men,  I  must  needs  tell  you  that  you  speake  both  tymorouslye  & 
without  iudgment,  —  timorouslye  in  addyng  when  the  Lord 
affordeth  fitt  men,  as  beUke  seeyng  that  sometyme  true  Churches 
want  the  vse  of  some  true  ofl&ces  (as  perhaps  your  owne) ;  with- 
out iudgment  in  affirming  that  all  true  Churches  haue  vse  of  those 
ofl&ces  which  with  one  breath  you  confes  they  maye  sometymes 
want  for  want  of  fitt  men,  &  yet  be  true  Churches./ 
Agayne  when  you  conclude  that  in  respect  of  the  kinde  of  deacon 
which  the  Church  of  England  makes,  The  Church  or  the  office  or 
rather  both  must  be  of  men  and  not  of  God,  you  ouerlash  extremelye; 
first,  for  the  office,  but  cheifelye  for  the  Church,  for  though  that 
ofi&ce  take  vp  the  name  of  deacon  (which  beyng  in  nature  comon 
to  anye  ministerye  was  appropriated  (by  vse)  to  that  ministerye 
about  the  poore),  yea  though  also  it  be  restreyned  from  a  full 
imployment  in  the  spirituall  ministerye  for  a  tyme,  yett  is  nott 
the  ofl&ce  simplie  of  men,  but  onely  the  limitacyon  and  rest^eynt 
of  it,  like  as  the  oflfice  of  readyng  the  Scriptures  in  the  congre- 
gacyon  is  not  of  men,  although  the  choise  of  such  a  person  & 
lymitacyon  of  so  manye  chapters  at  a  tyme  be  humane./ 
But  to  saie  that  the  Church  is  of  men  and  not  of  God  because  it 
hath  some  ordinance  not  commanded  or  wanteth  some  that 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  41 

should  be,  is  soe  foule  a  conclusion  as  this  should  be  against  a 
Christian,  to  saie  he  wanteth  of  all  that  grace  he  should  haue  & 
hath  in  him  some  defectes,  therefore  he  is  not  borne  of  God  but 
rather  of  flesh  &  blood./    You  add: 

But  because  there  is  noe  such  office  of  deaconship  in  St  Andrew's    *  Mr  Robinson 

which  is  the  suhiect  of  the  question,  therefore  we  will  passe  it  over  ' 

and  come  to  the  eldership  which  Christ  hath  left  in  his  Church, 

which  I  denie  to  he  found  in  St.  Andrewes,  whether  we  respect 

the  office  in  the  naturall  and  essentiall  partes  of  it,  or  the  calling 

vnto  it  prescribed  by  Christe./ 

It  is  tjmae  to  passe  it  ouer  when  you  haue  spent  your  powder  and  *  Answer 
shott  vpon  it.  It  had  bene  more  proper  to  haue  passed  by  it  with 
seylence,  seyng  it  was  (as  you  nowe  confes)  impertinent  to  oure 
question.  Lett  vs  now  heare  howe  you  proue  St.  Andrewes  not 
to  haue  the  eldership  which  Christ  left  in  his  Church  in  the 
naturall  and  essencyall  partes  of  it.  /  You  saye  as  followes:/ 

First  then,  this  office  of  eldership  is  committed  by  Christ  to  a    *  Mr  Robinson 

company e  or  colledg  of  elders,  who  are  ioyntly  to  minister  to  the 

particuler  Churches  ouer  which  they  are  sett.    Act.  14.  2j.  &•  20. 

27;  Phil.  I.  i;   Tit.  i.  j;   i.  Pet.  5.  i.  2./    But  St  Andrewes 

neyther  is  nor  canbe  possessed  of  any  such  eldership  thus  ioyntlye 

to  minister  to  it.     Ergo./ 

Speak  you  this  against  St  Andrewes  or  against  all  the  Churches    *  Answer 

vnder  heauen,  even  Mr  Johnson's  &  your  owne  especyally  ? 

which  is  further  of  from  a  colledg  of  elders  then  St  Andrewes,  for 

you  are  single  ^  &  perhaps  like  soe  to  be,  wheras  St  Andrewes  hath 

three  that  doe  administer  to  it,  all  preachers,  and  two  of  them 

noe  whit  inferior  to  your  self  in  anye  grace  of  God  for  the  minis- 

terye,  in  some  superior,  as  I  suppose  your  humilitye  will  confes. 

But  to  your  argument  &  proofes  of  it  alleadged./ 

One  of  your  places  doe  proue  that  there  were  in  the  first  planted 

Churches,  namelye  in  the  cittyes  first  planted  with  religion,  more 

ministers  then  one  to  attend  that  flocke  committed  to  them,  but 

'  This  passage  indicates  that  there  was  no  elder  in  Robinson's  congregation  at 
the  time  of  the  removal  to  Leyden. 


42 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


proues  not  that  that  fiocke  consisted  of  one  onelye  particular 
congregacyon,  although  (beyng  within  one  cittye)  it  is  called  one, 
C»Act.  II.  26.]  for  that  the  Church  of  Antioch  =*  where  the  Christians  so  well 
f-b  Act.  3.  41.  47.]  multiplied,  of  lerusalem  *"  wheretoe  belonged  more  thousandes 
then  could  convenientlye  be  drawne  to  one  assemblye,  the 
[« Act.  19.  10. 18.  Church  of  Ephesus  •=  from  whence  all  Asia  tooke  Hght,  were  one 
20]  onelye  particuler  congregacyon  is  neyther  certeyne  nor  prob- 

able; and  the  like  male  be  said  of  the  rest.  And  then  what  haue 
you  wonne  ?  seyng  the  question  is  of  one  particuler  congregation 
in  a  cyttye,  and  you  dispute  of  the  Church  of  a  cittye,  which 
beyng  in  some  respectes  one  maye  be  devided  into  manye  par- 
ticuler branches  and  in  all  likelyhood  was  then./ 
*  This  section  If  it  be  obiected  that  in  Jerusalem  was  one  onely  particuler  con- 
was  added  synce.  gregation,  because  it  is  said,  Act.  15.  9  [22],  It  seemed  good  to 
the  Apostles  &  elders  with  the  whole  Church.  &c.  I  answere  that 
the  phrase  is  captiouslye  taken  vp,  for  whole  Church  there 
ymportes  that  present  companye  of  the  brethren  which  were 
drawen  together  whose  ioynt  consent  is  noted  in  the  word 
whole  &  doth  not  import  that  all  the  belieuers  in  lerusalem  were 
present  &  gaue  consent,  for  they  were  brethren,  verse  10  [23], 
not  sisters,  who  yet  were  members  of  the  Church  &  might  be 
more  in  number  then  the  men./ 

2iie.  ^  generall  assemblye  drawen  out  of  sundrie  particuler  con- 
gregacyons  to  the  sinod  male  be  called  the  whole,  not  simplye 
but  in  a  sorte,  as  the  assemblie,  i.  King.  8,  is  called  the  congre- 
gacyon of  all  Israeli,  which  noe  man  will  dare  to  sale  was  all 
vniuersallye  present./ 


[Vid.  Act.  12.  4. 
What  12 
preachers  of  the 
Church  !] 


,lie. 


It  is  manifest  &  confessed  that  the  beleeuers  in  lerusalem 


did  meete  to  worship  God  in  smaller  companyes,  which  must  be 
true  Churches  of  God  or  false,  for  Churches  theye  were,  that  is 
assembUes  drawen  together  to  rehgious  worship,  thoughe  reteyn- 
ing  as  it  were  to  one  consistorye./ 
[4.  I.  Pet.  5.  2.]  Obiect  not  that  it  is  said.  Act.  20,  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  feed 
the  fiocke,  as  speaking  of  one,  for  so  sayth  Peter,  feed  the  flocke, 
writyng  to  the  elders  of  the  lewish  Churches  dispersed  in  Pontus, 
Asia,  Galatia,  Capadocia,  &  Bythinia,  in  which  you  will  not  sale 
there  was  but  one  particuler  Churche,  yett  all  those  particulers 
&  all  other  are  essencyallye  but  one  flocke  of  Christe./ 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  43 

If  you  instance  that  in  the  Actes  14  it  is  said  theye  ordeyned 
elders  in  euerye  Church,/  I  answere  that  the  place  is  to  be  in- 
terpreted partlye  by  it  self,  which  names  the  citties  of  Listra, 
Iconium,  &  Antiochia,  where  they  ordeyned  these  elders  {in 
euerye  Church) ;  partlye  by  another  like  by  you  alleadged,  wher 
Paule  gaue  Titus  in  care  to  ordeyne  elders  in  euerye  cittye  in 
which  there  might  be  more  then  one  particuler  Church./ 
Adde  thereto  that  the  Appostles  planted  Churches  onelye  in  the 
cittyes  for  the  better  spreadyng  of  religion  into  the  villages  & 
townes,  &  therefore  you  herein  doe  but  equivocate  in  the  name 
Churche,  which  sometymes  imported  all  the  seuerall  Churches 
of  one  cittye,  sometymes  one  seuerall  assemblie./ 
But  yf  euerye  particuler  congregacyon  had  more  ministers  then 
one,  howe  proue  you  a  colledg  ?  Two  are  more  then  one,  but  les 
then  three  cannott  make  a  colledg.  And  yf  this  were  Christes 
ordynance,  that  euerye  congregacyon  must  haue  a  colledg  of 
ministers  to  governe  it,  I  will  not  aske  how  countrye  Churches  & 
poore  townes  shall  doe  for  maintenance,  but  when  there  wilbe 
such  a  flood  of  able  ministers  as  will  serue  euerye  congregacyon 
with  a  colledg  of  them./ 

2.  Agayne,  admitt  that  the  Appostles  ordeyned  to  euerye  par- 
ticuler congregacyon  a  colledg  or  societie  of  ministers  to  governe 
it,  when  the  graces  of  God  for  the  ministery  overflowed  & 
Churches  were  fewe,  will  it  foUowe  that  it  ought  euer  so  to  be  ? 
Can  you  yett  see  no  difference  betwixt  an  example,  &  a  constitu- 
cyon,  a  presedent  &  a  cannon,  or  a  temporarye  ordinance  &  one 
perpetuall  ?/ 

3.  Finallye,  saye  it  ought  to  be  soe  perpetuallye  &  is  not,  doth  this 
proue  the  ministerye  of  St  Andrewes  to  be  another  ministerye 
then  that  which  Christ  hath  ordeyned  ?  Can  Mr  Robinson  see 
noe  difference  betwixt  the  kinde  of  ministery  &  manner  of  ad- 
ministracyon  ?  Were  the  Levites  another  ministerye  in  David's 
tyme  then  in  Moses',  because  then  cast  into  another  order  then 
they  serued  in  before  ?  You  might  as  well  saye  you  are  another 
man  then  you  were  in  Norwich  because  you  are  no  we  at  Ley  den, 
for  such  accidentall  changes  change  not  the  essencyall  beyng  or 
names  of  thinges,  and  you  vndertooke  to  speake  of  essencyall 
partes,  not  accidentall./ 


44 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


Come  we  to  your  second  reason :/ 

*  Mr  Robinson  The  elders  which  Christe  hath  left  are  to  feed  the  flocke  of  Christ, 

vnder  Christe  the  cheife  Sheepheard  immediatly,  6*  are  countable 

to  noe  other  sheepheard  but  him  alone  spirituallye./     i.  Pet.  5. 

/.  2.  J.  4.    But  the  ministers  of  St  Andrew^s  are  to  feed  not 

onlie  Chris tes  flocke  but  the  Bishop's  flocke  to  whome  as  to  an 

high  Shepheard  they  must  be  countable.    Ergo,  the  ministers  of 

St.  Andrewes  are  not  such  as  Christ  hath  left  to  his  Churche./ 

♦Answer    Countable  to  none  but  to  Christ  spirituallye,  that  is  ecclesiasti- 

callye,  what  odds  betwyxt  these  elders  &  a  pope  saue  in  number  ? 

for  this  is  his  primacye  to  be  in  spirituall  thinges  the  cheifest  & 

countable  to  none  but  to  Christe.    What  not  to  the  congregacyon 

where  they  are  ?  perhaps  yes,  but  to  noe  other  Shephard,  that 

is  to  the  sheepe,  but  to  noe  shephard.    What,  not  to  the  rest  of 

the  colledge  of  elders,  but  everye  one  entyer  ?  yes  perhaps  to  the 

shephards,  but  not  to  one  shephard./ 

So  wretched  a  thing  and  soe  blinde  is  a  contentious  mynde,  that 
to  winne  what  it  striues  for  will  lose  more  then  it  winnes./ 
But  how  falslye  this  is  said  that  the  ministers  of  Christe  are 
countable  to  none  but  Christe,  appeares  by  that  account  which 
&  Paule  bids  Tymothye  take  of  the  ministers,  &  yett  Timothye  was 
a  shephard  &  was  not  Christe./ 

If  you  obiect  that  Tymothye  was  an  evangelist  and  that  calling 
nowe  expired,  it's  not  to  the  point,  for  it  suffice th  to  proue  that 
the  elders  male  possibUe  be  accountant  to  some  other  shephard 
then  to  Christe,  which  you  gaynsayed./ 

And  seyng  all  your  prescription  for  your  colledg  of  elders  is  from 
those  tymes  in  which  the  Appostles  lyved,  &  evangelistes  alsoe 
to  take  a  reckoning  of  them,  with  what  face  can  you  plead  from 
these  tymes  a  perpetuall  colledg  of  elders,  &  refuse  from  the 
order  of  the  same  tymes  a  superioritye  of  some  power  over  the 
same,  whether  in  one  person  or  in  manye./ 
Your  onelye  place  to  proue  your  assertion  is  miserablye  alleadged 
out  of  I.  Pet.  5.  I.  2.  3.  4,  which  onelye  proues  that  the  ministers 
must  gyue  account  to  Christe  as  to  the  great  shephard,  but 
not  that  they  must  gyue  it  to  him  alone;  you  forgett  that  he  was 
an  Apostle  that  wrote  this  whome  (you  thinke)  they  were  to 
account  vnto./ 


*  I.  Tim.  I.  3. 
3.  15.  &4.  II. 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  45 

The  like  I  saie  to  the  first  branch  of  your  assertion,  That  the 
ministers  are  to  feed  the  flocke  of  Christe,  vnder  Christ  ymediatlye, 
that  is  without  subiection  to  anye  ecclesiasticall  or  spirituall 
power.  For  proofe  wherof  you  bring  nothing.  Against  which  I 
returne,  that  all  the  elders  which  the  Appostles  ordeyned  were 
subiect  to  them  and  to  the  evangelistes,  and  thoughe  that  power 
in  these  particuler  functions  haue  ceased,  nor  canbe  resumed  in 
the  right  of  those  determined  offices,  yet  such  a  power  must 
be  continued,  whether  in  some  selected  persons  such  as  were  at 
the  first  called  Bishops  or  in  the  consent  &  sinods  of  manie, 
otherwise  the  particuler  Churches  shalbe  without  bond  or  order. 
So  vnwiselye  do  you  provide  for  ech  particuler  congregacyon  a 
liberty  which  must  needs  preiudice  the  vniuersall  and  as  by  other 
your  argumentes  you  condemne  all  the  ministerye  that  is  or  hath 
beene  since  the  Apostles  as  a  false  ministerye,  so  doe  you  by  this, 
which  is  noe  small  sinne  in  you./ 

As  touching  your  minor,  That  the  ministerye  of  St  Andrewes  feeds 
not  Christes  flocke  onelye,  but  the  Bishop's,  it  is  fitter  of  scorne  then 
of  answere,  beyng  but  a  scorne  and  returnable  vpon  your  self, 
who  feed  not  oneUe  the  flocke  of  Christe,  but  your  owne,  I  trowe, 
els  whye  are  you  the  pastor  of  it  ? 

Is  it  soe  absurd  a  thing  that  that  flocke  which  is  properlye 
Christes  maie  in  some  sense  be  called  the  Bishop's,  that  you 
should  make  as  it  were  two  flockes  of  one  for  the  phrase  sake  ? 
The  Bishop  is  a  seruant  to  that  flocke  of  which  Christe  is  the 
Lord./ 

When  you  ad  that  the  minister  is  to  give  his  account  to  the  Bishop 
as  to  an  high  shepheard,  yf  you  meane  in  such  a  sense  as  Christe 
is  the  high  shephard,  you  knowe  you  slaunder;  yf  you  meane  as 
to  an  higher  (touching  the  administracyon  of  censures)  then  the 
pastor  is,  it  is  true,  and  yf  this  be  an  expression  of  the  minister's 
(which  you  haue  not  proued),  yet  doth  it  not  proue  his  ministerye 
in  the  holye  thinges  not  to  be  of  God  more  then  the  vsurpation 
of  the  Romanes  ouer  the  highe  preistes  office  in  placeyng  &  dis- 
placeyng  proued  a  nulletye  of  all  his  preistlye  actions  in  God's 
worship.  And  this  might  serue  for  answere  to  your  next  argu- 
ment, but  that  I  desire  to  gyue  you  a  full  hearing./ 


46  AN  ANSWER  TO 

Your  third  reason  to  proue  that  St  Andrewes  hath  not  essencyally 
such  elders  as  Christ  left  in  his  Church  thus  foUowes: 

*  Mr  Robinson  Thefeedyng  which  Christes  inioynes  his  ministers  is  the  teaching 

6*  ouerseeyng  or  governing  the  flocke  by  such  elders.    Act.  20. 
28;  I.  Thes.  5. 12. 13;  I.  Cor.  3.  i.  4. 5-^  5-  ^7-1 

♦Answer    This  which  you  make  your  third  argument  is  for  a  good  parte  of 

it  the  same  with  your  second,  for  what  meane  these  words  hy 

such  elders,  but  that  these  elders  should  feed  &  governe  the  par- 

ticuler  flockes  ymediatlye  vnder  Christe,  that  is  to  sale  without 

subiection  to  anye  other  ecclesiasticall  power;    which  if  you 

proued  as  you  offer  to  proue,  it  would  onely  conclude  that  the 

elders  of  St.  Andrewes  are  oppressed  and  abridged  of  that  power 

which  they  ought  to  haue,  but  this  will  not  proue  that  therefore 

they  haue  not  Christes  ministerye,  for,  because  they  are  robbed 

of  some,  doe  they  forfeyt  the  rest  of  their  right  ?/ 

**2    But,  indeed,  you  proue  not  that  the  ministers  of  Christe  ought 

thus  (immediatlye  vnder  Christe)  to  feed  &  governe  the  Churches, 

for  Act.  20.  28  showes  that  the  elders  are  bound  to  feed  the 

flocke,  &  I.  Thes.  5.  12.  13  showes  that  they  are  sett  ouer  them 

in  the  Lord;  but  neyther  of  these  showe  that  they  were  to  doe 

theire  office  imediatlye  vnder  Christ  without  subiection  to  other 

[» Deut.  16. 18.]    ecclesiasticall  officers  more  then  the  charge  which  Moses  ^  and 

[*>  2.  Chron.  19.     lehosaphat  ^  gaue  to  the  officers  and  Judges  for  doyng  iustice 

6-  7]  doth  proue  that  they  were  absolute  commaunders  imedatlye 

vnder  God  himself./ 

Your  third  place  out  of  i.  Cor.  3.  i.  4.  5  showes  not  that  the 
elders  were  not  subject  to  others,  but  that  our  dependance  must 
not  be  vpon  the  person  of  anye  minister,  but  vpon  Christe  that 
died  for  vs./  Your  fourth  place  of  i.  Cor.  5.  17  verse  is  mis- 
taken, beyng  but  13  verses  in  the  chapter./ 
**3  You  haue  not  onelie  not  proued  what  you  vndertooke  by  these 
scriptures  but  you  haue  proued  the  contrarye,  for  I  am  sure  you 
will  confesse  the  elders  of  Ephesus  (to  whome  Paule  giues  charge 
to  feed  the  flocke  that  depended  on  them)  and  soe  of  Thessalon- 
ica,  to  haue  beene  ecclesiasticallye  subiect  to  the  Appostle  that 
spake  this  to  them,  which  showes  that  subiection  to  an  higher 
ecclesiasticall  power  maye  stand  well  with  that  power  which  the 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


47 


Lord  gaue  vnto  the  particuler  pastor  of  anye  such  Church,  & 
that  they  male  feed  and  governe  the  flocke  though  others  ouersee 
bothe  them  and  their  flockes,  as  the  Appostles  &  theire  assignes, 
the  evangelistes,  did  these  pastors./ 

Nor  onlye  soe  but  this  president  doth  shewe  it  necessarye,  that  **4 
for  the  good  governing  of  the  particuler  Churches  there  be  some 
superintendent  power  which  by  ordering  &  combyning  the  seuerall 
flockes  of  Christe,  maie  prouide  for  the  good  of  that  vniuersall 
bodye  of  Christe,  which  consisteth  of  his  electe  dispersed  in  all 
the  particulers.    But  to  meete  with  this  you  adde:/ 

And  so  we  shall  finde  throughout  the  Newe  Testament  that  the    *  Mr  Robinson 

Appostles  neuer  ordeined  or   tooke  course  to  haue  ordeyned 

eyther  newe  Appostles  or  evangelistes  successiuelie,  but  still 

elders  in  euerye  particuler  Church  by  whome  the  Church  of  God 

was  to  befedde,  the  holie  thinges  of  God  to  be  administred  in  theire 

seuerall  charges./ 

A  successiue  ministerye  of  evangelistes  (properlye  vnderstood)  *Answer 
cannott  be  without  a  successiue  ministery  of  Appostles  vpon 
which  that  was  to  attend  for  particuler  dispatches;  nor  can 
there  be  anye  Appostles  properlye  but  such  as  sawe  the  Lord  in 
the  flesh  and  had  immediate  calling  from  God  with  vniuersall 
commission  ouer  all  the  world.  It  was,  therefore,  absolutelye 
impossible  for  the  Appostles  to  ordeyne  successiue  Appostles  or 
evangelistes  which  you  vnnecessarelye  affirme,  &  Mr  lohnson 
proues  verye  idolye  at  large,  as  yf  we  tooke  vpon  to  be  Appostles 
or  evangelistes.  It  is  also  most  certeyne  that  the  Appostles 
ordeyned  noe  other  kinde  of  standyng  minsterye  in  the  particuler 
Churches  then  pastors  or  elders,  but  what  then  ? 
If  hence  you  had  inferred  that  there  is  no  ecclesiasticall  function 
which  is  by  dyvine  institution  sett  aboue  the  pastors,  you  had 
said  truelie,  and  no  more  then  Hierome,  Augustyne  and  other 
fathers,  the  Cannon  Lawe,  the  Counsell  of  Basill,  all  the  Bishops 
of  England  in  King  Henry  the  Eightes  tyme,  &  generally  all  the 
reformed  Churches  doe  receyue,  which  hould  that  by  divine 
institucyon  a  Bishop  and  an  elder  are  one,  not  in  name  onelie 
(as  some  latelye  haue  trifled),  but  in  function,  as  the  Scripture 
doth  most  clearlye  showe./ 


48 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


Augustine  — 
Episcopum  non 
debere,  &c.] 


CAs  appeares  by  But  when  you  hence  inferre  (as  it  seemes  Aerius  ^  did)  that  it  is 
not  lawful!  to  constitute  a  Bishop  ouer  a  presbiter,  or  anye  eccle- 
siasticall  person  to  haue  superintendence  ouer  the  pastors,  you 
gather  it  weakelye,  as  yf  the  Appostles  had  forbidden  what- 
soeuer  they  did  not  commaund  in  external!  discipline,  or  the 
scripture  had  as  carefullye  determined  the  changeable  cyrcum- 
stances  thereof  as  the  most  necessarye  pointes  of  oure  saluation./ 
The  lawfulnes  &  the  necessitie  of  some  superintendent  power  ouer 
the  particuler  pastors  to  keep  them  in  good  order  &  vnitye  of 
doctrine  appeares  in  the  presidentes  of  that  power  which  the 
Appostles  committed  to  the  evangeUste  Timothy,  even  where 
he  had  established  elders./  i.  Tim.  1.3./ 

The  com[u]nion  of  the  Churches  &  their  mutuall  edification,  the 
correction  of  the  pastors  themselues  &  much  more  the  ordinacyon 
of  them  (which  neuer  was  gyuen  into  the  people's  hands)  doe 
showe  the  necessitye  of  some  superintendent  ecclesiastical!  power 
ouer  the  particuler  both  flockes  &  shepheardes./ 
What  is  then  to  be  said  ?  Verelye,  that  a  superior  power  ouer 
the  elders  must  euer  remayne  grounded  partlye  vpon  the  Ap- 
postolical!  presidents,  &  partlye  vpon  the  twoe  inviolable  lawes 
of  necessitye  and  charitie,  as  without  which  the  good  of  the 
vniuersall  cannott  be  possiblie  attended  &  confirmed  by  this 
devine  cannon,  God  is  not  the  God  of  confusion  but  of  order./ 
But,  as  touching  the  particuler  manner  of  executing  this  power, 
it  seemed  good  to  the  holye  Ghost,  not  to  prescribe  anye  one 
waye,  but  for  the  better  comoditie  of  the  Church  in  all  places  & 
ages  to  leaue  that  at  libertie,  bounded  onelye  with  generall  rules, 
that  the  Churches  might  with  good  conscyence  erecte  or  em- 
brace one  or  another  manner  as  necessitye  or  advantage  should 
perswade  them,/ 

And  hence  it  came  that  where  noe  evangelistes  were,  or  where 
the  evangelistes  (which  tooke  their  authorytye  from  the  Ap- 
postles) ceased,  the  Churches  of  cittyes  and  their  subburbs  were 
first  governed  by  comon  consent  of  the  pastors,  where  the 
superior  power  ouer  ech  particuler  was  placed  in  the  consent  of 
all  or  the  most,  as  it  is  in  euerye  popular  estate;  and  this  though 

'  Aerius  of  Pontus,  head  of  the  hospital  or  asylum  at  Sebaste  about  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century. 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


49 


it  was  (as  lerome  sayth)  the  first  fashion,  yett  was  not  prescribed 
by  the  Appostles  soe  to  be./ 

Wherefore,  when  the  Churches  found  inconvenience  of  this  order, 
because  men  drewe  to  parties  &  into  factions,  some  preuayling 
(as  euer  falls  out  in  such  a  gouernment)  aboue  the  rest,  the  pas- 
tors by  consent  found  it  requisite  to  choose  out  one  to  whome  by 
waye  of  specyaltye  they  gaue  the  name  of  Bishop  &  to  whome 
they  gaue  also  not  an  emptye  title  but  some  authoritye  and 
power  of  gouerment  though  not  all,  or  all  alone  to  him./ 

And  this,  as  it  began  in  some  places  before  all  the  Appostles  were    [Hieron.  Epist. 
dead,  as  at  Alexandria  from  Marke,  so  it  spread  (by  the  lykyng   fd  Euagrium;  et 
of  it)  ouer  all  the  world  in  that  age  &  hath  euer  since  continewed.    ^^    ^  "'"'  ^^^'  ^  '^ 
Howe  euer  Bishops  afterward  drewe  more  and  more  to  them,  till 
at  length  it  came  to  greate  abuse./ 

Nowe  as  the  Churches  of  citties  &  villages  belonging  to  them 
erected  the  Bishops  for  superinspection  ouer  the  elders  and 
Churches  therof ,  so  vpon  the  Uke  reasons  the  Bishops  of  sundrye 
cittyes  found  it  necessarye  to  submitt  them  selues  to  the  gouer- 
ment of  a  Metrapohtane,  whose  seate  was  in  some  cheife  cittie, 
and  this  in  tyme  of  persecution  &  by  consent./ 
Afterwards  also  they  rose  to  Archbishops  &  to  the  four  greate 
Patriarkes  (which  seeme  to  haue  beene  establyshed  at  the  fyrst 
Nicen  counsell)  as  a  convenient  meanes  both  to  righte  particuler 
insolencyes,  to  keepe  the  Churches  in  socyetye,  to  hould  out  of 
the  comunion  of  all  Churches  such  as  were  iustlye  caste  out  of 
anye,  &  for  the  better  gathering  of  particuler  sinods  or  generall 
counselles  (by  leaue  of  Kinges  &  Emperors)  through  decision 
wherof  the  appeales  and  controuersies  &  other  comon  affayres 
of  the  Church  were  handled  &  determined./ 
It  is  true  that  amongst  the  Patriarkes  also  they  thought  fitt  to 
giue  precedencye  to  one  (which  was  but  a  poynt  of  honor  and 
order),  &  this  fell  (for  the  glorye  of  the  emperiall  cittye)  to  Rome./ 
But  when  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  (whither  the  emperiall 
seate  was  retyred)  began  to  contend  for  a  newe  &  insolent  title 
of  vniuersall  Bishop,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  ouerwrought  him,  & 
contrarye  to  all  former  intencyons  &  institucyons  made  himself 
vniuersall  Bishop,  from  whence  he  became  that  monster  and 
man  of  sinne  which  exalted  it  self  aboue  all  that  is  called  God, 


50  AN  ANSWER  TO 

for  as  the  Emperours  coruptlye  suffered  his  papall  vsurpation 
ouer  the  Churches  to  their  irreparable  damage,  soe  God  after- 
wards suffered  it  ouer  the  Emperores  themselues,  to  their  most 
iust  &  shamefull  scorne  &  punishment./ 

Now,  Sir,  before  you  come  to  the  papall  tyrannye  which  lif tes  it 
self  aboue  all  that  is  called  God,  there  fell  sundry e  different 
orders  or  degrees  of  superintendencye  which  the  Churches  first 
tooke  vpp  by  consent,  while  the  magistrate  was  an  enimye  to  the 
fayth,  &  after  receyued  by  the  allowance  &  authoritye  of  the 
Christian  magistrate,  vnto  whose  place  the  disposinge  of  externall 
thinges  in  the  Church  doth  properlie  belonge  by  devine  institu- 
cyon  as  the  Lord's  Lieutenent  in  his  place./ 
So  then,  even  as  the  cyvill  power  is  divine  in  the  generall  nature 
[»Rom.  13.  1.3  for  which  it  is  said  to  be  of  God,''  but  in  the  particuler  kindes 
l^  I.  Pet.  2.  13.]  thereof  is  humane  ^  &  soe  called,  so  is  the  superintendent  eccle- 
siasticall  power  also./ 

And  the  ordering  or  setting  thereof  is  eyther  extraordinarye  or 
ordinarye,  extraordinarye  eyther  by  divine  comission  or  by  dis- 
pensacion,  by  dyvine  commission  once  onelye  in  the  Appostles, 
into  whose  hands  Christ  did  committ  that  power  ouer  all  Churches 
which  ordinarelye  perteynes  to  the  magistrates  in  theire  seuerall 
kingdomes  or  seigniories,  or  by  dispensacyon,  &  that  often  in 
case  of  meere  necessitye,  as  in  the  tymes  of  open  persecution  of 
the  fayth,  when  the  Churches  for  theire  owne  advantage  male 
constitute  the  best  orders  for  themselues  without  consent  of  anye 
magistrate,  hke  as  one  assaulted  then  lawfullye  protectes  his  life 
with  his  owne  sword  where  he  cannott  call  for  the  protection  of 
the  la  we./ 

But  ordinarelye  it  belonges  vnto  the  magistrate's  place  by  dyvine 
institucion  to  appoynt  such  externall  formes  &  orders  of  the 
discipline  as  (sortyng  with  the  generall  rules  of  scripture)  maye 
best  advance  the  Church  of  God,  of  whyche  God  hath  made  him 
a  member,  a  protector  &  father,  &  of  whome  he  will  take  an  ac- 
count therof ./ 

So  that  it  male  be  at  the  magistrate's  pleasure  to  establish  an 
externall  regiment  by  vse  of  sinods.  Archbishop,  &  Bishops  as  in 
the  first  well  ordered  churches,  or  to  reduce  the  regiment  of 
Churches  to  the  ioynte  gouerment  of  the  elders  in  their  cittyes 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  5 1 

or  cyrcuites,  or  to  devise  anie  other  good  waye,/  allwayes  pro- 
vided that  there  be  some  ecclesiasticall  coercyue  power  sett  ouer 
ech  particuler,  and  that  the  generall  good  of  the  Church  may  be 
still  intended,  and  that  those  essencyall  callinges  and  administra- 
tions which  Christ  hath  prescribed  be  vphoulden,  the  comon 
rules  of  the  word  in  all  thinges  obserued  for  edification./ 
I  returne  to  you  at  lengthe,  therefore,  &  confes  that  the  Appostles 
tooke  order  onelye  for  that  which  is  at  all  tymes  &  to  all  particuler 
Churches  simplie  necessary e,  that  is  the  standing  &  particuler 
ministerye  of  pastors  or  elders  &  their  ministration,  but  for  the 
superinspection  of  them  did  not  ordeyne  successiue  evangelistes 
but  onelye  lest  the  president  of  their  superintendent  power  as 
necessarye  to  be  practized,  though  not  vnder  the  title,  or  by 
proper  right  of  evangelistes,  nor  confined  vnto  anye  one  or  other 
manner;  wherein  they  haue  provided  for  the  varyetyes  of  tymes, 
ages,  places,  &  occasions  that  might  ensue,  without  detractyng 
any  thing  from  the  magistrates'  authoritye,  to  whome  (by 
dyvine  ordinance)  in  ordinarye  that  care  dothe  belong,  as  it 
hath  beene  executed  before  &  since  the  coming  of  Christ  in  the 
flesh.  Wherefore  the  ministerye  of  elders  male  execute  that 
which  Christe  hath  particulerly  inioyned  them,  although  some 
ecclesiasticall  authoritie  be  sett  ouer  them  to  see  them  doe 
dutyes  whether  it  be  of  Bishops,  elders,  or  sinods./ 
Now  haueing  cast  out  of  your  third  argument  that  branch  that 
belonged  not  to  it  but  to  your  second,  that  is  the  consideracyon 
of  the  elders  feeding  &  gouerning  vnder  the  inspection  of  others, 
lett  vs  se  it  as  it  is,  a  third  argument  distinct  from  the  second./ 

The  feedyng  which  Christ  inioynes  his  ministers  is  the  teaching  *  Mr  Robinson 
&*  ouerseeyng  of  theflocke,  but  for  the  ministerye  of  St  Andrewes 
as  it  is  vtterlye  prohibited  all  gouerment  which  the  Bishop  in- 
grosseth  into  his  owne  hands,  that  he  maie  lord  it  ouer  both  min- 
ister &"  people,  so  neyther  is  feedyng  by  preaching  necessarely 
inioyned  it,  bfcj 

You  bombast  your  minor  proposicyon  with  the  proofes  of  it 
vnseasonablye,  which  it  behooueth  to  seuer  &  soe  to  make  your 
proposicyon  orderlye  &  negatiue  to  the  maior  as  you  should  haue 
done  in  this  manner./ 


52 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


But  the  feeding  which  is  inioyned  the  ministerye  of  St  Andrewes 
is  not  the  teaching  &  ouerseeing  of  the  flockes.  Therefore  what  ? 
Therefore  the  feeding  and  gouerning  which  is  inioyned  the  min- 
istery  of  St  Andrewes  (you  meane  by  the  Bishops  or  the  la  we) 
is  not  the  feeding  which  Christ  inioyned  his  ministers. 
Is  not  this  the  direct  conclusion  of  these  premisses  ?/ 
He  looses  himself  sorelye  in  disputacyon  that  looses  the  question 
as  you  haue  done  in  this  argument,  for  you  should  haue  concluded 
that  therefore  the  ministerye  in  nature  and  essence  is  not  the 
ministerye  of  Christe,  instead  wherof  you  conclude  that  the 
officers  of  the  Church  doe  not  vrge  that  dutye  vpon  the  ministerye 
which  Christe  specyallye  required,  which  if  it  were  altogether 
true,  as  it  is  not,  showed  onelye  grosse  faulte  in  the  externall 
discipline  of  the  Church  or  officers  of  it,  but  did  not  showe  that 
therefore  the  ministerye  in  their  owne  nature  &  essence  were 
alienated  from  Christes  institucion./ 

For  is  an  inferior  magistrate  in  the  nature  of  his  office  changed 
from  God's  institution,  yf  a  negligent  Prince  forgett  to  presse 
vpon  him  the  proper  duties  of  his  function  ?  Were  even  obedient 
children  essencyallye  changed  from  the  condicyon  of  naturall 
sonnes  amonge  the  lewes,  because  the  pharisies  pressed  not  the 
commaundement  of  honouryng  father  and  mother  as  God  would, 
but  contrarilye  ?    Mat.  15. 

Is  a  chast  wife  estranged  from  the  essencyall  propertyes  of  a  wife, 
yf  the  lawes  punish  not  adultrye,  or  her  owne  husband  require 
not  chastitye  of  her  ?/ 

I  euer  tooke  it  that  the  essentiall  or  materiall  dutyes  of  an  office 
were  in  the  nature  therof,  whether  men  inioyned  them  or  not, 
and  so  will  you  thinke  when  you  consider  better  of  it,  and  then 
will  you  see  the  pouertye  of  this  argument,  which  because  it 
could  not  ouerthrowe  the  cause  tilted  besides  it./ 
So  then  yf  this  third  argument  be  wholye  graunted  our  cause  is 
not  hurte,  because  not  touched  in  the  conclusion,  howebeit  your 
assumption  is  not  altogether  true,  namelie  that  the  feeding  inioyned 
by  the  Church  of  England  vpon  the  pastors  is  not  by  preaching,  and 
gouerning  the  flockes  committed  to  them,  of  which  you  doe  con- 
fusedlye  mix  the  proof e  with  your  proposition,  saying: 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


S3 


First  the  minis terye  of  St.  Andrewes  is  vtterlye  prohibited  all    *  Mr  Robinson 
gouerment  which  the  Bishop  ingrosseth  into  his  owne  hands  that 
he  maie  lord  it  ouer  both  minister  and  people,  secondlye  that 
preaching  is  not  necessarelye  inioyned./ 

You  forgett  all  moderation  when  you  saie  the  ministerye  of  St.  *Answer 
Andrewes  is  vtterlye  prohibited  all  gouerment./ 
Is  there  noe  goverment  of  the  Church  in  feeding  it  by  doctrine  ? 
Is  it  not  the  cheife  parte  of  spirituall  gouerment  ?  in  soe  much  as 
the  same  woord  which  signifies  to  feed,  signifies  also  to  gouerne, 
when  God  saith  to  leremye,  that  he  sett  him  ouer  kinges  and 
nations  to  plant  &  plucke  vp,  &c.,  gaue  he  him  noe  gouerment  ? 
And  yett  he  gaue  him  none  but  by  preaching.  Is  not  the  min- 
isterye of  God's  word  the  arme  of  his  power,  the  scepter  of  his 
kingdome  ?  Is  not  labouring  in  the  word  &  doctrine  made  the 
more  honorable  branch  of  gouerment,  i.  Tim.  5.  17  ?  What  a 
man  are  you  to  saie  that  he  that  hath  the  word  and  sacramentes 
and  administration  of  prayers  alsoe  committed  to  his  care  is  pro- 
hibited all  gouerment  in  the  Churche!/ 

Againe,euery  minister  both  maie  &  ought  publikelye  to  admonish, 
exhorte,  rebuke,  convince  knowen  sinnes  or  errors,  &  at  his  ordi- 
nacyon  is  made  to  promise  to  giue  his  faythfull  dilligence  alwayes 
soe  to  administer  the  doctrine  &  discipline  as  Christ  hath  ap- 
poynted  &  that  Church  receyued  it./ 

Againe,  he  maye  present  anye  knowen  offendor  to  the  churches 
ofiicers,  he  is  bound  to  suspend  from  the  Lord's  table  anye  notore- 
ous  offendor  or  ignorant  person.  He  maie  possiblie  be  assistant 
to  the  Bishop  in  ordination  or  maie  be  taken  by  the  Bishop  for 
an  assistant  in  his  sentences  of  depriuation,  suspenseon,  or  ex- 
comunication,  and  yett  you  saie  he  is  vtterUe  prohibited  all 
gouerment,  as  yf  you  had  resolued  vtterHe  to  abandon  all  mod- 
estye  in  reproueyng./ 

But  you  thinke  belike  he  loses  all  that  has  not  all,  or  not  all  he 
should./  Finally  the  Bishop  by  the  kinges  authoritye  &  consent 
of  the  parliament  houldeth  that  which  you  saie  he  ingrosseth,  & 
is  made  the  comon  seruant  of  the  Churches  in  that  office  wherein 
you  saie  he  lords  ouer  them,  &  in  his  ofiice  is  restreyned  by  lawes 
in  the  matters  &  manner  of  his  proceedyng,  nor  hath  anie  power 


54 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


of  imposeyng  anie  lawe  vpon  the  consciences  of  men  or  anie 
externall  order  but  that  which  is  by  lawe  established./ 
Wherein  yf  anie  of  them  affect  or  vse  to  much  greatnes  forgetting 
them  selues  and  their  bretheren,  their  institucyon  and  trust,  it 
is  a  great,  but  yett  a  personall,  not  a  functionall  fault  as  you 
make  it./ 

No  we  as  this  of  goverment  is  vntrue,  soe  is  that  of  preaching 
partlie  guilefull,  partlye  false;  guilefuU,  when  you  put  in  the 
word  7iecessarelie  which  was  not  in  your  maior  proposicyon,  as  yf 
preaching  were  not  at  all  enioyned  because  not  necessaryUe, 
wherin  yett  it  is  vntrue  (as  shall  appeare  in  answere  of  that  you 
add  for  proofe  of  it),  and  yf  it  were  true,  is  not  sufficyent  to  proue 
your  intencion  as  hath  beene  shewed./ 

Robinson  The  minister  ye  or  rather  indeed  the  preisthood  of  St  Andrewes 

6*  so  of  all  other  the  parishes  of  the  land  stands  in  offering  vp  the 
daylye  sacrifize  of  the  service  booke,  in  marijng,  huryhig,  church- 
ing of  women,  ministring  sacramentes  in  forme,  readynge  homi- 
ly es,  &  perfonning  other  cannonicall  obedience  accordyng  to  the 
oath  of  cannonicall  obedience,  but  for  preaching  the  Gospell  or 
that  parte  of  it  which  the  lawe  alloweth,  it  is  not  essencyall  to  the 
ministery  of  England,  but  an  accidentall,  personall  qualification, 
there  beyng  manye  hundreds  in  the  land  true  ministers  accordyng 
to  the  English  cannon  which  neyther  doe  nor  can  preach./ 

*Answer  To  proue  that  preaching  is  not  necessareUe  inioyned,  you  first 
ramble  ouer  for  your  pleasure  some  other  thinges  that  are  neces- 
sarelye  inioyned,  as  yf  the  more  vehement  imposicion  of  those 
thinges  not  so  necessarye  as  preaching  would  proue  this  were  not 
necessarelie  required,  Uke  as  one  should  sale.  Men  at  [?]  manages 
take  bondes  for  ioynters,  dowryes,  and  such  like,  &  none  for 
honestye,  therefore  chastity  e  or  fidelitye  is  not  necessary  lye  by 
them  required;  as  yf  soe  be  that  pointe  was  not  vnderstood  in 
the  verye  nature  of  mariage  (though  there  be  noe  mention  made 
of  it)  as  an  essencyall  &  the  most  important  point  which  needed 
not  (as  the  other)  to  be  spoken  of  particulerlie./ 
But  when  you  sale  the  ministerye  of  the  English  Church  stands 
in  these  thinges,  as  yf  nothing  els  were  to  be  done  (for  that 
wherein  a  thing  standes  conteynes  it),  you  knowe  you  speake 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  55 

vnrighteouslie,  for  you  &  I  &  others  because  we  could  not  obserue 
all  other  thinges  required,  were  put  from  preaching  as  from  a 
specyall  parte  of  our  ministerye,  therebye  to  compell  vs  to  the 
other  thinges,  which  sureUe  they  would  not  haue  done,  yf  our 
ministerye  had  stood  in  those  thinges  onelye  wherein  you  place 
it./  Now  whether  they  doe  not  presse  these  lesser  thinges  to 
much  &  esteeme  that  greater  to  Uttle,  our  Lord  will  iudge,  but 
we  are  partyes  and  should  feare  least  their  hard  vsage  put  vs 
out  of  order,  seeyng  Salomon  hath  said  that  oppression  makes 
euen  a  wise  man  mad,  of  which  sentence  I  beseech  you  to  con- 
sider wiselie./ 

Bui  preaching  (saie  you)  is  not  essenceall  but  an  accedentall, 
personall,  qualefication./ 

Accedentall  &  personall  sometymes  importes  inherent  &  proper 
qualetyes  &  are  not  directlye  opposite  to  essentiall  in  euery 
sense  thereof./ 

But  by  other  tearmes  of  casuall  and  accedentall  ornament  after 
added,  you  showe  your  self  to  meane  an  accessarye  &  not  neces- 
sarye  facultie,  which  words  yf  you  had  onelie  vsed  might  haue 
gyuen  you  light  inough  to  showe  theire  owne  falshood,  for  asmuch 
as  at  the  ordinacyon  of  euerye  elder  according  to  the  Church  of 
England  the  Bishop  require th  of  him  both  guiftes  to  teach  &  a 
promise  of  doyng  it,  noe  mencyon  being  then  made  of  mariage, 
burying,  churching  of  women,  or  the  rest  of  your  addicions,  nor 
of  the  oath  of  obedience.  Beside  you  knowe  that  the  readyng 
of  homiUes  beying  intended  for  a  supplie  of  preachinge  &  the 
inioyning  of  such  pastors  as  could  not  preach  to  provide  at  the 
leaste  monthlie  sermons  doth  manifestlye  showe  that  oure 
Church  did  euer  hould  preaching  not  a  casuall  ornament  but  a 
necessarye  facultye  in  a  pastor./  And  soe  all  our  learned  divines 
though  favorers  of  the  state  haue  written,  &  preachers  taught, 
in  that  Church./ 

But  you  instance: 

There  be  manye  hundreds  in  the  land  true  ministers  accordyng   *  Mr  Robinson 
to  the  English  cannon  which  neyther  do  nor  can  preach,  therefore 
preaching  is  not  essencyall  or  necessarye./ 


*Answer 


[t  For  as  nullum 
is  sometymes 
irritum 

sometymes  onely 
vnperfect,  so 
verum  is  some- 
tymes perfect, 
sometymes 
existens.2 


56  AN  ANSWER  TO 

Howe  manie  hundreds  I  knowe  not,  but  I  suppose  the  ages  to 
come  will  hardlie  beleiue  that  so  shamefull  a  botch  could  be  in 
cure  so  long  &  not  be  cured./ 

But  to  your  argument  I  answere  that  it  is  a  fallacye,  a  dicto 
secundum  quid  ad  dictum  simpliciter./ 

For  yf  by  true  ministers  accordyng  to  the  canon  you  meane  such  as 
the  canon  allowes  as  able  &  sufficyent  to  take  cure  of  soules,  as 
wherevnto  the  guifte  of  preaching  is  not  necessarye,  you  then  lett 
your  tongue  speake  &  aske  your  heart  noe  leaue,  but  yf  by  true 
ministers  you  meane  that  they  are  counted  in  some  sense,  &  so 
true,t  that  their  actions  &  administrations  in  prayer  &  the 
sacramentes  maie  not  be  abhorred  or  counted  merelie  voyd,  then 
you  speake  truth  but  lose  your  argument,  seyng  you  knowe  that 
preaching  maie  still  be  held  essencyall  or  necessarye  to  the  func- 
tion of  the  ministerye,  though  the  want  of  it  doe  not  to  all  pur- 
poses destroye  the  ministerye,  as  the  memorye  is  necessarye  to 
man,  the  want  whereof  doth  not  vtterlie  deface  him  or  denie  the 
name  of  man  to  him./ 

If  you  yet  trauayle  vpon  the  word  essencyall  as  perhaps  you  will, 
you  must  remember  that  essenceall  is  eyther  simplie  soe,  as  with- 
out which  a  thing  cannot  be,  or  in  a  sorte  soe,  as  without  which 
a  thing  cannott  be  entire  or  good./ 

In  the  course  of  your  argument  you  seemed  to  intend  no  more 
by  essencyall  but  that  which  was  necessary  lie  required,  opposed 
to  a  casuall  ornament./ 

If  from  essencyall  in  that  sense  you  slip  to  essencyall  in  another 
sence,  as  it  maie  importe  a  thing  simplie  necessarye,  then  do  you 
but  plaie  the  sophister  vnder  the  ambiguitie  of  words  &  withall 
bring  your  self  into  a  newe  laborinth./ 

For  yf  you  hould  the  guifte  of  preaching  to  be  simplie  essencyall 
to  the  minister's  office  then  cannott  the  minister's  oflfice  be  with- 
out it  nor  it  without  the  minister's  office  for  an  houre,  so  a  man 
cannott  haue  the  guifte  of  preaching  vnles  he  be  a  minister,  &  he 
that  is  once  the  minister  of  a  flocke  must  euer  be  able  to  preach, 
for  yf  euer  by  sicknes  or  other  occasion  he  be  disabled  to  preach, 
his  office  by  this  rule  is  voyd,  inasmuch  as  nothing  can  stand 
without  that  which  is  simplie  essencyall  to  it,  noe  not  for  a  mo- 
ment, by  which  absurdities  you  maie  be  moued  to  see  that  the 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  57 

guifte  of  preaching  is  not  essencyall  to  the  office  of  the  minis- 
terye  in  such  a  meaning,  but  rather  that  it  is  essencyall  to  the 
office  as  a  most  necessarye  facultie  in  him  that  shalbe  an  able  & 
a  worthie  minister./ 

And  yf  you  come  once  to  this,  you  come  first  to  that  which  the 
Church  of  England  professeth,  namelie  that  though  the  vnpreach- 
ing  ministers  be  in  some  sense  true  ministers  &  not  simplie  priuate 
persons,  haueing  that  publique  admittance  to  the  Churches  ser- 
vice which  makes  them  externallye  &  in  the  eye  of  the  Church 
ministers  or  seruantes  thereof,  so  as  theire  actions  are  not  meerelye 
voyd  as  of  men  vncalled,  yett  they  are  not  worthye  or  sufficyent 
ministers,  because  they  want  that  guift  &  abilitie  of  preaching 
which  is  as  essencyall,  materiall,  or  necessarye  to  an  elder  as  the 
vse  of  his  senses  or  memorye  to  a  man./ 

Wherefore,  yf  you  be  beaten  out  of  the  ambiguitye  of  these  two 
words,  true  &°  essencyall,  &  from  that  sophisme  which  is  a  dido 
secundum  quid  ad  dictum  simpliciter,  this  blowen  argument  (as  a 
bladder  pricked)  falleth  flatt./ 

And  this  alone  {which  I  desire  mate  be  well  considered)  shewes    *  Mr  Robinson 

howe  vtterlie  vnlawfull,  &'  so  all  communion  with  it,  the  office  of 

the  minister  ye  in  England  is,  whereof  preaching  is  no  essencyall 

parte,  but  a  casuall  or  accidentall  ornament  which,  whether  it 

come  or  come  not,  makes  nothing  to  the  beyng  or  essencyall  con- 

stitucyon  of  the  ministerye  accordyng  to  which  we  must  iudge 

of  it./ 

The  poynt  which  you  desire  to  haue  well  considered  is  worthie  *Answer 
of  it,  for  it  will  shew  a  marveylous  want  of  iudgment  or  of  sin- 
ceritie  in  you,  euen  in  you  that  take  so  much  vpon  you,  for  you 
assume  that  to  the  constitucyon  of  a  minister  in  England  preach- 
ing makes  nothing  essencyallye,  that  is  necessarilye,  but  is  a  casuall 
ornament,  in  which  eyther  you  playe  the  sophister  vnder  couert 
of  phrases  (of  which  before)  or  els  you  plaie  the  beare,  which 
enraged  with  hunger  flies  vpon  anie  thinge  she  meetes,  whether 
it  serue  for  praye  or  not./ 

For  what  aduised  man  durst  sale  as  you  doe,  knowing  that  the 
verie  forme  of  constituting  ministers  which  that  Church  ob- 
serueth,  thorowe  which  you  once  passed,  doth  point  out  this 


58  AN  ANSWER  TO 

dutye  of  preaching  as  the  most  specyall  of  the  elder's  function 
not  onelie  by  the  scriptures  selected  for  that  end  to  be  then  read, 
as  Act.  20  &  I.  Tim.  3.  i,  but  in  the  Bishop's  premonityon  to 
him  that  is  to  be  ordeyned  &  charge  imposed  vpon  him  in  the 
very  ordinacyon  it  self  to  preache  the  word  of  God,  &c./ 
Nowe  yf  you  still  obiect  a  contrarye  tolleracyon,  whether  it  came 
by  necessitye  of  tymes  or  negligence  of  men  or  both,  it  is  nothing 
to  the  constitucyon  of  the  Church  by  which  (you  saie)  one  ought 
to  iudge./ 

Fynallie,  I  invert  your  argument  thus.  The  feedyng  which  Christ 
enioyned  his  pastors  is  by  preaching  his  doctrine  &  gouerning  his 
people,  but  such  is  the  feedyng  of  the  ministerye  of  St.  Andrewes, 
therefore  it  is  such  as  Christe  hath  inioyned  &  consequentlie  such 
as  you  sinne  to  forsake,  much  more  to  condemne  as  you  doe./ 
Now,  haueyng  followed  the  threed  of  your  argument  strictlie  to 
the  end  of  it,  lett  me  turne  backe  to  showe  you  the  printes  of  your 
feete,  by  which  you  maie  consider  their  need  of  washing./ 
You  vndertooke  to  speake  onelie  of  St  Andrewes  Church  where 
you  knowe  there  is  an  excellent  ministerye.  What  made  you 
leape  ouer  that  pale  sett  vp  by  your  consent  &  fall  into  a  course 
after  the  poore  halting  ministerye  of  other  places.  Was  this 
place  to  hott  for  your  conscyence,  when  you  came  to  oppose  the 
ministerye  therof ,  or  had  you  hope  to  couer  your  separation  from 
so  holye  &  reuerend  a  ministerye  by  an  outcrye  made  against  the 
hundreds  of  ignorant  or  careles  fellowes  in  other  places,  as  Florus  ^ 
hid  his  owne  oppression  of  the  lewes  vnder  complainte  of  their 
mutinies./  Mr  Robinson,  Mr  Robinson,  beleiue  it,  the  Lord 
lesus  will  not  put  vp  the  high  scorne  you  haue  cast  vp  against 
his  worthye  seruantes  and  ordinances,  though  you  crie  out  neuer 
so  lowd  or  iusthe  of  other  men's  vnworthines!  Our  God  will  not 
be  thus  deluded./ 

What  meane  you  to  come  in  with  this  correction,  {or  rather  the 
preisthood  of  St  Andrewes./)}  For  yf  you  take  preisthood  as  the 
booke  of  ordinacyon  doth,  it  is  no  more  then  eldership,  beyng 
deryued  from  the  Greeke  Presbuter,  &  then  your  or  rather,  &c., 
is  such  a  correction,  as  yf  one  haueyng  said  ghost  (should  saie) 
or  rather  spiritt,  which  is  the  same./ 

'  Gessius  Florus,  procurator  of  Judaea,  a.d.  64-65. 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


59 


But  if  you  meane  vnder  another  scornefull  sense,  which  the 
popish  preistes  haue  purchased  to  that  word  to  vilifie  the  Lord's 
ministerye,  as  it  appeares  you  doe,  your  sinne  is  not  little,  your 
repentance  hath  need  be  great./ 

And  what  meane  you  to  compare  the  forme  of  devine  seruice 
prescribed  to  the  dayUe  sacrifize  of  the  popish  masse  preistes  that 
vndertake  to  offer  a  daylie  &  propiciatory  sacrifice  for  sinnes? 
Do  you  thinke  that  whatsoeuer  is  hatefull  is  fitt  for  you  to  speake, 
or  vs  to  heare,  be  it  neuer  so  iniurious  ?/  Or  doe  you  forgett 
that  railers,  as  well  as  murtherers,  are  debarred  the  kingdome  of 
God  ?  Or  do  you  not  knowe  that  this  is  ray  ling  ?/ 
Whye  talke  you  also  to  vs  of  the  oath  of  cannonicall  obedience, 
which  in  England  is  Umitted  to  althinges  good  and  lawfull,  & 
yett  ympose  vpon  euery  proselite  admitted  to  your  comunion  a 
protestation  against  all  those  Churches  with  which  you  haue 
nothing  to  doe  ?  Is  not  this  as  much  as  the  oath  of  cannonicall 
obedience  ? 

Your  next  argument  to  proue  the  ministerye  of  St  Andrewes  not  to 
be  that  which  Christ  hath  left  in  his  Church  is  from  respecte  of  the 
calling,  which  I  will  sett  downe  and  a[n]swere  by  peices,  as  it  lyes./ 


[Mr  lohnson's 
congregation,  if 
not  your  owne, 
are  sayd  to 
require  it./] 


*  Mr  Robinson 


Thus  much  for  the  office,  nowe  followes  the  entrance./ 
An  vnlawfuU  entrance  or  calling  into  an  office  makes  the  ad- 
ministracyon  of  it  b'  comunion  in  it  vnlawfuU.  Numbers  i6. 
40;  loh.  10.  I.  9;  Heb.  5.  4.  5;   I.  Tim.  5.  22./ 

Your  proposicyon  is  not  vniuersallye  true  &  therein  sophisticall,    *Answer 

while  you  afiirme  that  of  euerye  vnlawfuU  entrance,  which  is 

onely  true  of  some./ 

Some  thinges  are  vnlawfuU  whollye  so  as  they  make  a  meere 

nulletye  of  the  action,  as  to  marye  another  man's  wife,  or  within 

the  degrees  of  blood  prohibited./ 

Some  thinges  are  vnlawfuU  in  parte  onelie,  when  anie  branch  of 

the  lawe  is  broken  which  makes  a  fault  in  the  action  but  not  a 

nulletye  of  it,  as  for  a  man  to  marye  with  a  notorious  vnchast 

woman./ 

Where  a  nulletye  is  in  the  action  there  the  administration  or 

execution  of  anie  calling  is  vnlawfuU  toties  quoties  as  in  the  case 

of  incestious  mariage./ 


6o  AN  ANSWER  TO 

Nor  can  anie  repentance  for  the  sinne  committed  in  the  entrance 
legitimate  the  execution,  because  the  first  action  is  voyd./ 
But  where  the  faulte  is  in  parte  oneHe,  it  doth  not  passe  into  the 
administracyon,  but  restes  in  that  one  act  of  entrance.    Hence  it 
is  that  a  man  which  hath  vnlawfully  maried  with  an  vnchast 
woman,  maye  yett  lawfullye  vse  his  vnlawfull  mariage.  So  in  case 
of  magistracye,  yf  a  man  simplie  vsurp  his  administracyon  [he]  is 
in  euerye  acte  sinnefull,  because  he  hath  no  calling.    But  yf  a  man 
be  corrupthe  called,  his  entrance  is  vnlawfull,  but  not  soe  his  ad- 
ministration, beyng  entred,  because  the  lawfullnes  of  administra- 
cion  followes  simplie  the  calUng  of  the  lawfullnes  of  the  calUng./ 
Your  proposition   therefore  beyng  indefinite  or  vniuersall  of 
euerye  vnlawfull  entrance  is  false,  nor  do  your  proofes  make  it 
good,  whereof  but  one  toucheth  the  matter,  that  is  Numb.  i6. 
40,  That  no  stranger  which  is  not  of  the  seede  of  Aaron  come  neare 
to  ofer  incense  before  the  Lord,  that  he  he  not  like  to  Korathe  6*  his 
company.    This  place  proues  well  that  both  administration  and 
comunion  therein  is  vnlawfull,  where  there  is  a  meere  vsurpacyon 
of  the  ministerye  as  was  in  Korath.     For  when  God  had  once 
ordeyned  the  sonnes  of  Aaron  alone  to  that  ministerye  &  ab- 
solutelie  precluded  all  others,  none  elles  could  enter  the  function 
howe  well  soeuer  qualified  otherwise./    But  what  is  this  to  an 
entrance  not  simphe  but  in  some  respectes  vnlawfull,  as  all  our 
actions  are  in  the  sight  of  God  vnpure,  yet  not  ympurities. 
Bring  a  scripture  to  proue  the  administration  of  Aaron's  sonnes 
&  comunion  with  them  to  haue  beene  vnlawfull,  when  such  of 
them  entred  the  office  as  were  not  qualefyed  with  that  knowledge 
and  sanctetye  which  God  required  in  the  preistes  (whose  intrance 
therefore  was  in  some  sorte  vnlawfull,  though  not  as  this  other 
vtterlie  and  to  all  intentes  voyd),  and  then  you  speake  to  the 
pointe,  els  you  trifle  and  compare  thinges  vnlike./ 
Your  second  place  out  of  loh.  10.  i  &  9  is  cleane  without  the 
circle,  haueing  noe  word  in  it  that  touches  the  externall  calling 
or  entrance  of  the  ministers,  for  Christ  (alluding  to  the  fashion 
of  that  tyme  &  countrye  where  they  housed  their  sheepe  by 
night  for  safetye  &  lead  them  out  in  the  daie  to  pasture,  the  shep- 
heard  goyng  in  &  out  first)  sayth,  verse  i,  that  he  that  enters  not 
by  the  dore  but  clymes  another  waye  is  a  theife,  &  in  the  9  verse, 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  6 1 

that  he  himself  is  the  dore,  &c.,  meaning  to  showe  that  he  is  both 
the  dore  by  which  the  sheepe  (his  electe)  goe  in  for  protection  & 
out  to  finde  pasture,  that  is  comfort  to  their  soules,  &  also  that 
he  is  the  dore  or  passage  by  which  all  true  shepheards  of  his 
sheepe  goe  in  and  out  before  his  sheepe  to  lead  them,  that  is, 
they  desire  to  knowe  nothing  among  the  sheepe  but  Christ 
crucyfyed  &  teach  the  people  of  God  noe  other  dore  or  waie  vnto 
life  but  the  Lord  lesus,  &  yf  anie  man  beate  out  an  other  waie  to 
the  sheepe  then  this,  he  is  a  robber,  which  not  haueing  the  dore 
opened  vnto  him  clymes  in  at  the  windowe.  This  place  then  will 
proue  that  yf  anye  man  preach  anye  other  way  of  saluation  but 
by  the  Lord  lesus,  he  is  as  a  theife  stollen  in  vpon  the  flocke  to 
doe  mischeife,  he  is  noe  shephard./ 

Now  what  is  this  to  the  purpose,  yea  rather  how  much  against 
you,  &  howe  fitt  to  proue  the  ministery  of  St  Andrewes  to  be  en- 
tred  by  the  dore,  which  preaches  (for  saluation)  nothing  but  the 
Lord  lesus  &  that  with  great  sinceritye  &  evidence  of  the  holye 
Ghost,  your  conscyence  beyng  witnes./ 

Your  third  place  of  Heb.  5.  4.  5  showes  that  as  noe  man  did  (that 
is  lawfully)  take  the  office  of  the  preisthood  vpon  him,  except 
he  were  called  of  God  as  Aaron  was,  verse  4,/  &  that  Christ  was 
called  to  be  oure  high  preist,  verse  5,/  what  inferre  you  from 
hence  ?  that  a  man  must  haue  even  in  euerye  point  such  a  par- 
ticuler  calling  from  God  to  the  ministerye  as  Aaron  had,  because 
it  is  said  as  Aaron  ?  Yf  so,  then  no  preist  after  his  tyme  was 
lawfullye  called.  Yf  you  meane  that  a  man  must  haue  a  calling 
from  God,  it  is  graunted,  but  yf  you  thinke  he  hath  noe  calling 
from  God  whoe  in  his  calling  varyeth  at  all  from  the  prescription 
of  God,  then  you  misse  as  before,  confoundyng  those  thinges 
which  are  simplie  necessarye  with  those  which  are  onelye  com- 
odious  and  requisite./ 

Or,  yf  you  intend  thereby  to  proue  that  a  man  entring  other  or 
otherwise  then  God  would  haue  him  sinneth,  take  you  that  also, 
but  yf  you  thinke  it  will  followe  that  therefore  all  his  adminis- 
tracyon  is  vnlawfuU,  &  soe  communion  with  him,  you  againe 
mistake./  For  what  sale  you  to  the  administration  of  those 
preistes  which  vndertooke  the  holie  seruice  of  the  Lord,  the  office 
of  Aaron,  to  serue  theire  owne  bellyes  ?  did  they  enter  lawfully  or 


62  AN  ANSWER  TO 

was  their  administracyon  to  all  intentes  vnlawfull  &  so  comunion 
with  them  ?/ 

Your  last  place  is  i.  Tim.  5.  22,  wherein  Paul  sayth  to  Tymothie, 
Ley  hands  suddenlie  on  noe  man  neyther  be  partaker  of  other  men's 
sinnes./ 

I  mervayle  at  your  libertye  in  cyteyng  the  holye  Scripture,  for 
what's  this  to  your  purpose  ?/ 

Tymothye  shall  sinne  yf  he  laye  hands  rashlie  on  anie  man  (that 
is)  to  ordeyne  anie  minister  &  make  himself  partaker  with  their 
sinnes  that  do  soe  or  with  the  sinne  of  him  that  vnworthelie  seekes 
that  ofl&ce,  what  then  ?  Therefore  yf  anie  man  enter  sinnefuUye 
his  administration  is  vnlawfull  or  comunion  with  it.  Howe 
hanges  this  together  ?/ 

Perhaps  you  meane  that  in  comunion  with  a  minister  that  enters 
sinnefullye  a  man  must  needs  sinne.  Verelie,  yf  he  commune 
with  him  in  the  sinne  of  his  entrance,  that  is  help  to  committ  it, 
abett  it,  or  allowe  it,  as  Tymothye  must  haue  done  in  laying  on 
his  hands  rashelie;  but  to  thinke  that  he  that  comunicates  with 
him  in  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  holie  thinges  doth  sinne, 
is  a  strange  imagination  without  ground./ 
Paul  to  Tymothye  settes  downe  what  ministers  should  be  ad- 
mitted. I  demand  [?]  yf  anye  covetous  person,  or  contentious,  or 
ill  husband  to  his  wife,  or  yong  scoller  were  admitted,  whether 
the  entrance  of  that  man  should  be  lawfull,  yea  or  noe  ?  You 
must  saie  noe./ 

I  aske  then  whether  yf  such  a  man  preached  Christ  though  for 
gaine  or  envye  his  administration  should  defile  me  ?  &  I  thinke 
you  will  saie  noe.  I  am  sure  Paule  would  who  reioyceth  that 
Christ  was  preached  of  some  though  of  en  vie./ 
Finallye,  you  are  not  well  advised  to  make  comunion  in  the  ad- 
ministracion  vnlawfull,  where  the  administracyon  it  self  is  vnlaw- 
full not  in  the  kinde  thereof  but  in  that  minister's  person,  for 
some  respectes./  For  by  this  it  must  followe,  that  the  ordinances 
of  God  shalbe  lawfull  or  vnlawfull  to  the  people  of  God  not  ac- 
cording to  the  Lord's  institucyon  &  theire  owne  holie  vse  of  them, 
but  according  to  the  minister's  vprightnes  or  worthines  &  sin- 
ceritye  in  his  entrance  and  administration./  Your  assumption 
followes  thus: 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


63 


But  the  waie  or  entrance  into  the  ministerye  is  vnlawfull  b'  ahy   *  Mr  Robinson 

path  as  will  appeare  yf  we  compare  it  with  that  holye  and  high 

waie  which  the  Scriptures  open  for  all  the  ministers  of  the  Lord 

to  passe  by,  which  is  the  free  voluntarye  choise  &"  election  of 

that  particuler  charge  wherein  they  are  to  minister.    Numb,  i 

[?].  8.  g.  10;  I.  Sam.  7;  Ezek.  jj.  2;  Act.  i.  15.  23.  6*  6.  2.  3. 

4.  &•  14.  23;  2.  Cor.  8.  ig;  Tit.  i.  5,  &°c./ 

If  a  man  graunted  your  minor,  yett  were  your  argument  naught,  *Answer 
vnles  the  entrance  you  speake  of  were  to  all  intents  vnlawfull  & 
voyd,  seyng  as  hath  beene  shewed  not  euerye  vnlawfulnes  in  the 
entrance  makes  the  administration  vnlawfull,  but  onelye  such  a 
one  as  makes  a  nulletye,  which  is  rather  noe  entrance  then  an  vn- 
lawfull entrance,  yf  one  speake  properlye./ 

But  lett  vs  see  howe  well  you  proue  your  assumption./ 

Everye  entrance  other  then  by  the  free  choyse  of  the  people  is  vn-    [M  Robinson] 
lawfull  saie  you,  but  such  is  the  entrance  of  the  present  ministerye 
of  St.  Andrewes  in  Norwich  (for  of  it  wee  speake),  therefore  it 
was  vnlawfull./ 

To  proue  euerye  entrance  other  then  by  the  free  choise  of  the  [Answer] 
people  to  be  vnlawfull,  you  alledge  manie  textes,  by  all  &°  euerye 
of  which  you  saie  it  appeares  that  the  officers  of  the  Church  of  God 
were  not  onelye  called  &"  appointed  to  their  ministerye  in  the  face 
and  presence  of  the  particuler  congregations  wherein  they  were  to 
serue,  but  also  by  their  free  choise  and  election./  I  looked  for  a 
lawe  and  you  gyue  me  an  example,  yea  to  proue  that  it  is  vnlaw- 
full to  be  otherwise  then  thus,  you  proue  that  it  was  lawfullye 
thus  vsed;  as  yf  a  man  would  proue  that  it  is  not  lawfull  for  vs 
to  weare  shorte  garmentes  as  we  doe,  because  it  appeareth  that 
the  people  of  God  vsed  long  ones,  or  that  we  maye  not  make 
oure  feastes  at  dinner  because  they  made  theires  at  supper,  or 
male  not  giue  a  certeyne  pension  to  maynteyne  a  minister  because 
the  tythes  of  the  lewes  &  contributions  of  the  Christian  Churches 
were  vncerteyne./ 

If  it  be  said  these  cases  are  not  like,  that  saie  I  must  be  proued, 
or  els  it  is  as  easilye  denied  as  said.  At  least  this  will  serue  to 
showe  that  the  argument  from  examples  alone  is  not  a  rule  of 
prescription./ 


64  AN  ANSWER  TO 

But  it  maie  be  the  places  alleaged  by  you  doe  not  euerye  of  them 
so  much  as  showe  such  a  president,  much  lesse  that  such  a  thing 
must  euer  be./ 

The  first  place  is,  Numbers  8.  9.  10,  which  proues  not  that  the 
Levites  were  appoynted  by  the  free  choise  &  election  of  the 
people,  but  contrarilye  that  God  first  elected  them,  vers.  6,  to 
that  seruice,  and  then  appoynted  the  people  to  showe  their 
acceptance  of  his  ordinance  by  puttyng  their  hands  vpon  the 
Levites'  heads,  &c./  Nor  was  this  a  successiue  act  of  the  partic- 
uler  congregations  in  which  the  Levites  serued  successiuelie,  but 
one  acte  of  the  whole  collectiue  state  of  Israeli  once  for  all./ 
So  it  houlds  ney  ther  in  the  poynt  of  a  particuler  congregacyon,  nor 
of  free  election,  but  of  approbation,  these  ceremonyes  beyng 
enioyned  the  people  that  they  might  knowe  that  these  were 
ministers  nowe  assigned  vnto  them  of  God,  sayth  Peter  Marter. 
I.  Sam:  7./ 
[i.  Sara.  7.]  The  second  place  is  nothing  at  all  of  free  election  but  of  Eleazer's 
consecracyon  (a  person  elected  by  God's  lawe)  by  the  vse  of  such 
legall  ceremonies  as  God  had  appoynted.  Nor  was  this  for  the 
seruice  of  one  particuler  congregacyon,  but  of  all  that  should 
resort  vnto  the  arke  of  God,  which  had  noe  hand  in  the  con- 
secracion  of  this  preist,  who  yett  was  to  minister  vnto  them  as 
well  as  to  the  men  of  Chireath  learim,  who  consecrated  him. 
And  in  that  poynt  is  this  place  also  against  you,  and  showes  that 
a  man  maye  lawfully  administer  to  such  as  chose  or  call  him  nott, 
yf  this  were  a  choise  or  calling  of  Eleazer  to  the  ministerye,  as  you 
take  it./ 

Your  third  place  of  Ezechiel  ;^;^.  2  is  les  to  the  matter,  for  the 
speech  is  not  of  a  spirituall  watchman  chosen  by  the  people  to 
watch  ouer  their  soules  as  you  (hungry  of  proofes)  doe  take  it, 
but  of  a  watchman  sett  vppon  the  guard  of  the  cittye  as  sentinell, 
who  was  worthye  to  dye  yf  he  did  not  discouer  the  enemie's  ap- 
proaches; from  which  the  Lord  takes  a  similitude  to  informe  the 
prophett  that  likewise  he  should  die  yf  he  giue  nott  warning  to 
the  people,  over  which  (not  the  people  but)  God  himself  without 
the  people  had  made  him  a  watchman,  verse  7./ 
Your  fourth  place  is  Act.  i.  15.  23  which  showes  that  vppon  the 
Appostle  Peter's  speech  vnto  the  brethren  there  assembled  they 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  65 

presented  two,  wherof  one  was  to  succeed  into  ludas  his  place, 
but  the  24.  25.  26  verses  showe  that  they  did  not  choose  that  one, 
but  by  prayer  besought  God  to  showe  which  of  these  twoe  he 
had  chosen,  who  answered  them  by  guydyng  the  lott  vpon 
Mathias.     Soe  farre  is  this  place  from  proveing  the  people's 
choise,  that  it  showes  the  choise  of  God  not  of  the  people  as  was 
necessarye  in  the  calUng  of  an  Appostle,  which  must  be  from 
God  &  not  of  men.    Wherefore  this  place  also  is  ill  cyted,  for  as 
the  choise  was  God's  &  not  the  people's,  so  the  seruice  he  was 
chosen  for  was  not  proper  to  that  assembhe  which  (you  sale) 
chose  him,  but  vniuersall  to  all  the  Churches  as  of  an  Appostle. 
And  yett  you  alleadge  this  to  proue  that  a  particuler  congrega- 
tion must  choose  that  minister  that  is  to  serue  it./ 
Your  5th  place  is  Act.  6.  2.  3.  4,  which  is  not  of  elders  but  of 
deacons  in  whose  election  the  Appostles  themselues  would  haue 
noe  hand  because  there  was  a  murmuring  against  their  adminis- 
tracyon,  as  yf  they  had  beene  parciall  in  disposing  the  Church 
almes,  wherefore  to  remoue  all  suspicion  they  aduise  the  brethren 
to  choose  out  from  among  themselues  fitt  persons,  &c.    Out  of 
which  I  suppose  you  will  not  inferre  that  the  minister  male  haue 
noe  hand  in  the  election  of  a  deacon  because  the  Appostles  had 
none  in  the  very  acte  of  this  election,  and  yett  this  aswell  as  anie 
thinge  male  be  vrged  from  theire  example./ 
Secondlye,  this  is  an  example  onelie  which  makes  not  a  la  we  & 
was  occasioned  by  a  particuler  reason.    Besides  that  the  same 
place  shewes,  first,  that  till  this  change  the  Appostles  did  execute 
that  care  themselues  which  were  not  elected  thereto  by  the  people. 
And  2'"%  that  vpon  an  inconvenience  obserued  this  newe  order 
was  made;   in  which  2  circumstances  the  place  is  against  you, 
the  former  shewing  that  this  office  male  possibUe  be  administred 
by  other  then  such  selected  deacons,  the  latter  that  matters  of 
externall  forme  (not  simplie  prescribed)  male  be  altered  vpon 
occasion  to  the  better. 

Finallye,  yf  this  example  bynde,  it  byndeth  to  the  number  of  vij 
deacons  in  euerye  congregacyon,  because  the  Appostles  require 
so  manie,  which  point  I  suppose  you  neyther  obserue  nor  require, 
and  therefore  must  loose  the  benefitt  of  that  testimonye  to  which 
you  stand  not,  as  the  lawyers  saie./ 


e6  AN  ANSWER  TO 

Your  6  place  is  Act.  14.  23,  where  oure  translacyon  sayth,  And 
when  they  (Paide  and  Barnabas)  had  ordeyned  them  elders  by  elec- 
tion in  every  cittye,  dfc,  where  you  seeme  to  haue  a  faire  example 
of  elders  ordeyned  by  election.    But  herein  the  translacyon  hath 
mislead  you,  for  the  originall  it  self  hath  not  the  word  election 
in  it,  and  yett  vpon  that  is  all  your  buildinge  framed.    You  will 
saie  the  word  x^i-porov^o}  there  vsed  doth  signifie  to  ordeyne  by 
election  or  suffrage,  as  the  etymologye  of  Tijv  x^^po.  relvo)  showes. 
To  which  I  answere,  first,  that  though  the  word  in  his  originall 
signification  importe  to  electe  &  ordeyne  by  liftyng  vp  of  hands 
or  suffrage,  yett  in  comon  vse  it  also  signifies  to  ordeyne  with- 
out anie  suffrage  of  hands  or  election,  Hke  as  the  word  elder  origi- 
nallye  signifies  an  elderlie  man,  yett  in  vse  came  to  signifie  an 
officer,  though  he  were  a  verye  younge  man,  as  Timothie  was./ 
And  besides   that,  Budeus  in  his  commentaryes  &  Stephen  in 
his  Thesaurus  of  the  Greeke  tongue  showe  you  sundrie  examples 
where  this  word  signifies  simplie  to  create  or  ordeyne  without 
suffrage.    You  shall  understand  that  it  is  vsed  in  the  Scriptures 
to  signifie  ordeyning  where  noe  suffrage  or  election  could  be  ad- 
ioyned,  as  Act  10.  41,  where  it  is  said,  not  to  all  the  people,  but 
to  vs  the  witnesses  (TpoKexn-poTovrjuevoLs)  foreordeyned  of  God, 
&c.    I  am  sure  you  will  not  saie  God  foreordeyned  them  witnesses 
by  election  or  hftyng  vp  of  men's  hands,  &  yett  there  is  the  verye 
same  word  x^^poroveo),  which  in  this  place  you  build  vpon,  onelye 
compounded  with  a  preposition  which  makes  (to  this  pointe) 
noe  difference  at  all./ 

Moreouer,  when  the  word  is  vsed  to  signifie  creation  by  suffrage 
or  election,  there  (for  ought  I  knowe)  it  is  referred  to  those 
persons  in  whome  the  suffrage  doth  lye,  not  vnto  others  that  vse 
their  suffrage.  But  in  this  place  it  is  not  said  of  the  churches  but 
of  Paule  &  Barnabas  (xeipoTovqaavres)  ordeyning  elders  vnto 
them,  &c.,  makeyng  this  ordinacyon  to  be  the  acte  not  of  the 
seuerall  Churches,  but  of  Paule  &  Barnabas,  which  showes  that 
in  this  place  the  word  must  importe  ordination  by  their  authoritye, 
not  election  by  the  Churches  themselues;  and  then  this  place 
is  as  dyrectlie  against  you  as  anie  could  be  alleadged./  But  yf 
a  man  gaue  you  this  place  freelie  as  showing  the  election  of  theis 
ministers  by  the  people,  what  had  you  wonne  but  an  approued 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  67 

example,  which  proueyng  that  such  a  course  is  lawfull  (of  which 
no  man  doubtes)  will  not  inforce  that  it  is  perpetuallye  necessarye 
as  you  assume./  Finally,  yf  we  must  fetch  all  from  examples  of 
those  tymes,  then  from  this  example  will  followe  that  a  particuler 
congregacyon  hath  not  the  sole  power  of  ordeyning  her  officers, 
in  as  much  as  Paule  &  Barnabas  which  were  no  standing  mem- 
bers of  these  churches  ordeyned  (though  by  election)  the  min- 
isters thereof.  So  you  lose  in  the  shiere  what  you  winne  in  the 
hundred./ 

Your  7  place  of  2.  Cor.  8.  19,  speaking  (not  of  elders  or  anye 
standing  ministerye,  but  of  a  brother  whose  praise  was  in  the 
Ghospell,  appoynted  to  accompanie  St  Paule  in  carying  the 
Churches'  benevolence  to  lerusalem)  saith  that  this  brother  was 
also  chosen  of  the  Churches,  vseing  againe  the  word  x^^poropioo, 
which  beyng  affirmed  of  the  Churches  maie  seeme  to  importe  an 
election  by  suffrage,  yett  yf  I  maie  speake  what  I  thinke,  I  take 
it  not  to  importe  so  much,  but  onelie  the  Churches  to  whome 
Paule  did  recomend  him,  had  gyuen  their  consent,  &  so  had 
ordeyned  him,  not  by  puttyng  it  to  scrutenye,  hands,  or  voyces, 
whether  he  or  another,  but  allowing  him  onelie.  Otherwise  he 
must  haue  beene  put  to  newe  election  at  euerye  particuler  Church, 
which  had  beene  to  so  worthie  a  man  a  greate  dyspargement  & 
noe  little  slacking  of  the  busines.  Nowe  yf  you  graunt  that  ap- 
probation of  him  was  a  good  assignement  &  in  stead  of  an 
election,  then  followes  that  the  people's  approbation  of  a  min- 
inster  presented  to  them  or  imposed  on  them  maie  be  called  as 
well  as  this  a  choosing  of  him,  &  where  are  you  then  ? 
But  take  it  as  yf  this  brother  was  put  vpon  a  newe  election  at 
euerye  Church  (which  is  absurd  to  thinke)  &  that  by  free  elec- 
tion of  eche  he  had  beene  chosen,  will  this  proue  that  no  min- 
ister maie  be  ordeyned  to  anie  service  of  anie  particuler  Church 
but  by  election  of  that  Church  ?  Will  an  affirmatiue  example  in 
one  kinde  make  a  negatiue  lawe  in  all  kindes  of  ministeryes  ? 
Yea,  that  you  maie  out  of  this  place  see  howe  poorelye  you  reason 
from  this  example,  consider  that  the  Appostle  doth  appointe  & 
send  this  brother  ordeyned  by  other  Churches  not  to  be  likewise 
elected  by  the  Church  of  Corynth,  but  to  be  accepted  of  them  as 
a  man  worthye  to  be  trusted  with  their  almes,  seing  his  praise 


68 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


was  in  the  Ghospell  and  other  churches  had  (by  their  assent)  ap- 
pointed him  thereto.  So  then  to  the  Church  of  Corinth  he  was 
in  this  to  minister  as  well  as  to  others,  and  yett  was  not  com- 
mitted to  the  pleasure  of  their  election  but  imposed  or  commended 
onelye.  He  instances  ill  that  bringes  an  instance  directUe  against 
his  cause  as  you  in  this  haue  done, 
a  Verse  i6,  &c.  Moreouer,  yf  you  had  not  beene  to  much  transported  you  might 
in  the  verye  same  chapter  ="  haue  obserued  that  Titus  without 
election  of  anye  Church,  at  Panic's  intreatie  or  rather  of  his  owne 
inclination  was  sent  or  went  to  Corinth  and  did  vndertake  the 
self  same  kinde  of  ministration  for  which  the  Appostle  there 
giues  him  honor.  So  this  place  showes  against  you,  that  a  man 
maie  be  appointed  to  doe  &  male  doe  service  to  a  particuler  con- 
gregacyon  both  lawfully  and  honorabhe,  though  he  be  not 
elected  by  the  same  congregacyon  therevnto,  vnles  you  will 
condem  Titus  whome  Paul  comends./ 

Your  last  place  is  Titus  i.  verses  5.  6,  For  this  cause  left  I  the  in 
Creta  that  thou  shouldest  redresse  things  amiss  df  ordeyne  elders  in 
every  cittye,  as  I  appoynted  the.  As  one  appealed  from  King 
Phillip  sleeping  to  King  Phillip  wakeing,  so  doe  I  from  Mr 
Robinson  to  Mr  Robinson  touching  this  place,  for  soe  farre  is 
this  from  poyntyng  out  the  election  of  the  Churches,  that  it 
oneUe  speakes  of  the  ordinacion  be  trusted  to  Titus,  the  evange- 
list, —  to  Titus  not  to  the  Churches.  Nor  doth  he  here  vse  the 
word  x^i-poToveu  as  Act  14  but  another  whereto  you  can  make 
no  such  pretence. 

And,  indeed,  this  place  is  rather  against  the  election  of  the  people 
then  for  it,  in  asmuch  as  Paul  professeth  to  haue  lefte  Titus  in 
Creta  as  to  ordeyne  ministers,  so  to  redresse  the  thinges  amisse. 
Wherefore,  yf  you  will  not  siae  he  must  haue  the  consent  of 
the  people  or  leaue  thinges  vnredressed,  neyther  maie  you 
saie  he  was  to  ordeyne  ministers  by  their  election  or  to  ordeyne 
none./ 

But  you  alleadge  this  place,  as  yf  Paul  had  not  written  to  Titus 
but  to  the  Churches  of  Creta  to  ordeyne  their  owne  ministers 
[by  their  election,  or  to  ordeyne  none].^    So  credulous  a  thing 


Kara  ttoXlv  vrpecr- 
^urepouj.^ 


^  In  the  MS.  the  words, '  by  their  election  or  to  ordeyne  none,'  have  been  crossed 


out. 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  69 

is  a  strong  conceit,  that  it  seemeth  to  possesse  what  it  desires,  [Judges  5.] 
as  Siserar's  mother  reckoned  of  conquest  in  her  sonnes  ouer- 
throwe.  I  conclude  then  that  neyther  anye  one  nor  all  the  places 
doe  proue  that  which  you  said  was  proued  by  all  &  euerye  of 
them,  yea  that  some  of  them  do  soe  manifestlie  disproue  it,  as 
I  should  wonder  you  could  so  much  mistake,  saueyng  that  it  is 
more  wonder  that  anie  man  sees  the  truthe  then  that  manie 
are  blinded  &  see  it  not./ 

It  remaines  onelie  that  I  invert  this  argument  vpon  you  in  this 
manner,  Yf  so  be  sundrie  ministers  &  ministeryes  haue  lawfullye 
serued  extraordinarye  and  ordinarye  to  those  particuler  congre- 
gacions  by  which  they  were  nott  elected,  then  the  free  election 
of  the  congregacion  is  not  simplie  necessary e./ 
But  sundrie  ministers  &  ministeryes  extraordinary  &  ordinarye 
haue  lawfully  serued  such  congregacyons  as  did  not  elect  them./ 
Therefore  the  free  election  of  the  particuler  congregacyons  is 
not  simplie  necessarye  to  the  constitution  of  a  lawfull  ministerie./ 
The  consequence  of  the  maior  is  cleare./ 

The  minor,  or  assumption,  is  manifest  not  onelye  in  the  extra- 
ordinarye calhnges  of  prophettes,  Appostles,  and  evangelistes, 
which  had  no  callyng  by  the  election  of  those  congregacyons  to 
which  they  were  sent;  but  in  the  ordinarye  callinges,  aswell  in 
the  ould  Testament  as  in  the  newe,  for  none  of  the  preistes  or 
Levites  had  their  particuler  ordinacyon  or  calUnge  from  the  par- 
ticuler congregacyons,  especyallye  not  the  high  preistes  which 
administred  to  all  the  tribes,  but  succeeded  ordinarylie,  or  was 
extraordinarelye  put  in  by  the  civill  maiestrate  as  Zadock  by 
Salamon  withoute  the  people's  election./ 

And  so  David  disposed  the  preistes  and  Levites  into  orders  of 
ministracion;  lehoiada  the  high  preist  appoynted  officers,  &c., 
in  the  minoritye  of  loash,  2.  Chron.  23.  18;  lehosophat  settes  of 
the  preistes  &  Levites  for  the  ludgment  &  cause  of  the  Lord,  2. 
Chron.  19.  8.  9;  Hezekia  commaundes  (without  asking  the 
people's  good  will)  the  preistes  vnto  their  dutyes,  2.  Chron.  29. 
4.  5.  II,  ordeyned  the  courses  of  the  preistes  and  Levites,  cap. 
31.  2,  after  the  people  were  gone  home,  verse  i,  &  tooke  order 
for  their  maynteynance  (not  by  consent  but)  by  commaund, 
verse  4,  &  all  this  well  and  vprightlye,  verse  20;  losiah  sett  the 


70 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


[•  Brownes  treat- 
ise of  reformation 
without  tarrying; 
Barrow  against 
Gifford.i] 
'» [Joseph,  Philo 
Judaeus,  Euse- 
bius,  Zonaras  & 
Cedrinus  show.^ 
=  [Vide  Renfer- 
rium  (Rhenferd) 
Tom.  2  depontific. 
Israeliticis,  pag. 
8ss  et  846.] 


preistes  &  Levites  in  their  charges,  2.  Chron.  35.  2.  3.  4,  &c.; 
nor  onelie  the  kinges  of  luda,  of  whome  some  of  your  leaders 
haue  said  they  did  this  as  figures  of  Christ  ^  (which  yf  it  were 
true  is  yett  to  the  poynt  nowe  in  question  no  help),  but  euen 
the  heathen  princes  that  reigned  ouer  them,  and  specially e  the 
Romanes  that  put  in  and  out  their  highe  preistes  at  their  pleasure 
without  consent  of  the  people  or  nation,''  who  yett  were  iustlye 
reputed  the  true  preistes  of  the  Lord  &  are  soe  esteemed  by  some 
of  your  side,"  in  as  much  as  theye  were  of  the  posteritye  of  Levye, 
though  not  of  Aaron./ 

In  the  newe  Testament  Peeter  &  lohn  not  as  Appostles  but  as 
delegates  were  sent  by  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  to  Samaria 
vncalled.  Acts  8.  14.  And  so  Barnabas  to  Antioch,  Actes  11.  12, 
to  which  Church  he  after  ministred  till  God  specyallye  called 
him  awaye,  13.  i.  2,  &  this  not  by  divine  instincte  as  he  was  called 
thence,  but  at  the  first  by  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  after  (as  it 
maie  seeme)  by  his  owne  zeale./ 

Paule  leaues  Titus  in  Creta  &  Timothy  to  Ephesus  (not  by  their 
election  but)  by  his  owne  authoretie  &  gyues  them  order  to 
ordeyne  the  ordinary  ministers  without  anye  mencyon  of  taking 
or  seeking  the  people's  consent  therein.  Titus  is  vsed  not  in  the 
evangehstes  office  of  teaching,  but  in  the  matter  of  gathering 
for  Jerusalem  by  Paul's  appoyntment  &  his  owne  consent,  not 
by  election  of  the  Church.  2.  Cor.  8.  16./ 

Jf  you  replie  that  these  were  extraordinarye  ministeryes,  I 
answere  that  so  were  some  of  those  examples  which  you  alleadged, 
as  that  of  Mathias,  Act.  i,  of  that  brother  i.  Cor.  8;  and  secondlie 
that  all  myne  are  not  extraordinarye./ 

If  you  reply  that  the  Appostles  beyng  interessed  in  all  Churches 
might  send  ministers  to  doe  service  there  without  the  people's 
election,  you  then  graunt  the  cause,  namelie  that  a  ministerye 
hath  beene  sett  lawfullye  ouer  some  Churches  without  election 
thereof  &  consequentUe  maie  be  againe./ 

Att  the  least  this  is  wonne,  that  seeyng  you  argue  onelye  from 
examples,  &  J  haue  brought  examples  also  against  you,  that 
therefore  the  thinge  be  less  indifferent  in  it  self  to  be  swayed  by 
other  accessorye  cyrcumstances,  both  waies  beyng  lawfuU  & 
^  Barrowe's  book  is  entitled  A  Plaine  Refutation,  1591. 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  7 1 

neyther  simplie  necessarye,  as  the  contrarietie  of  approued  ex- 
amples manifests  vnto  vs./ 

Nowe  haueing  answered  your  scriptures  lett  vs  see  your  reason 
subioyned  to  confirme  the  same  proposition./ 

And  good  reason  why  the  Church  should  both  well  knowe  b'freelie    *  Mr  Robinson 
approue  her  ministers  to  whome  she  is  to  committ  her  self,  souks, 
&  bodyes,  a  most  precious  treasure  purchased  with  the  blood  of 
Christe./ 

Knowledg  &  free  approbation  maie  fall  to  those  Churches  which  *Answer 
haue  not  the  power  of  free  election,  which  you  seeme  to  con- 
found, but  taking  your  meaning  to  be  (as  it  is)  of  free  election, 
I  answere,  that  yf  it  be  verye  good  reason  it  should  be  soe  yet 
followes  it  not,  that  this  is  the  onelye  lawfull  waie  of  the  Lord, 
or  that  where  a  thing  is  not  done  after  the  best  manner,  there  it 
is  not  done  at  all./ 

It  is  good  reason  that  in  choise  of  magistrates  the  first  respect   **i 
should  be  to  the  feare  of  God  &  wisdome  more  then  to  byrth  or 
wealth,  but  yf  men  crosse  this  good  reason,  is  the  choise  void  ? 
Is  not  such  a  maiestrate  God's  ordinance  ?/ 

Secondly,  this  good  reason  of  youres  is  not  simplie  good  nor  **2 
allwayes,  for  what  yf  the  Churches  be  infected  with  error,  dis- 
tracted with  faction,  cannott  accord  in  their  election,  be  par- 
tiallye  caryed  to  an  ill  choise  (which  thinges  haue  often  fallen 
oute),  is  it  not,  then,  as  good  reason  that  a  ministerye  well 
knowne  &  approued  by  others  that  can  iudge  be  sett  ouer  them, 
as  it  is  good  reason  to  bynde  a  distracted  person  ?  Verelye 
sundrye  of  the  best  reformed  Churches  haue  thought  it  fitt  to 
limmitt  the  people's  freedome,  confining  their  election  (or 
rather  approbacyon)  to  such  persons  as  the  ministerye  haue  first 
approued,  rather  then  to  put  all  vpon  theire  discretion.  And 
though  the  first  Churches  did  necessarilye  carrye  this  busines   [f  After  the 

by  the  people's  free  assent,  when  by  reason  of  persecution  they    Appostles 

•  tymes  i 

could  not  doe  otherwise,  yett  found  they  so  manye  mconven- 

iences  as  they  tooke  the  first  oportunetie  of  restreyning  the  same 

by  decrees,  which  newe  remedye  in  tyme  proued  a  newe  mis- 

cheife,  as  all  thinges  maie  doe  by  sinn  [?]  and  corruption./ 

Thirdlie,  I  would  knowe  howe  farre  this  goode  reason  extends  it   **3 


72  AN  ANSWER  TO 

self,  whether  to  all  those  soules  &  bodyes  of  which  the  ministerye 
taketh  charge,  or  but  to  some.  If  you  saie  to  some  onelie,  then 
your  rule  breakes,  for  when  Christ  hath  equally  purchased  all, 
&  all  are  to  be  serued  by  that  ministerye,  it  should  followe  that 
all  must  choose  their  minister  freelie,  that  is  by  their  owne  likeyng 
&  consent,  one  aswell  as  another./ 

If  all  must  haue  hand  in  election  then  women,  seruantes,  children 
(beyng  comunicantes) ,  for  these  haue  soules  &  bodyes  purchased 
by  the  blood  of  Christ  &  are  members  of  the  Church./ 
Yf  you  like  not  this  you  abandon  your  principle  &  are  gone,  and 
yf  you  replie  that  wyves,  children,  &  seruantes  giue  their  consent 
in  their  husbands,  fathers,  &  masters,  then  you  confesse  that  a 
free  election  of  all  the  members  of  the  Church  is  not  necessarelie 
executed  by  their  particuler  persons,  but  maie  be  done  by  com- 
mitties.  Yf  so,  then  by  more  or  fewer,  &  then  whye  not  by  a 
fewe  put  in  trust  ?  which  is  the  case  of  the  Enghsh  Churches, 
which  by  consent  of  Parhament  haue  submitted  themselues  to 
the  present  order  of  election,  &  ordination  by  the  patron  & 
Bishop,  reteyning  to  themselues  oneUe  a  negatiue  power,  in  case 
the  person  so  chosen  be  not  legallye  qualefied. 
Finallye,  yf  this  reason  be  simpUe  good  &  necessarye  then  noe 
minister  is  lawfullye  called  vnles  all  the  soules  he  takes  charge 
of  doe  both  well  knowe  him  &  freely  approue  his  election.  So 
when  the  greater  parte  chooses  one  whome  the  lesser  parte 
would  not  haue,  this  minister  is  a  lawfull  minister  onelye  to  that 
parte  which  freely  consented  to  his  choise,  vnlawfull  to  that 
parte  vpon  which  (by  multitude  of  other  men's  voyces)  he  is 
imposed  sore  against  their  wills./ 

Doe  you  not  see  whither  these  conceytes  will  dryue  you,  to  what 
absurdetyes  &  extremityes  ?  for  you  will  not  saie  (I  suppose) 
that  a  minister  chosen  by  the  greater  parte  is  not  a  lawfull  min- 
ister to  the  lesser.  You  cannott  saie  the  lesser  chose  him  freelye, 
for  they  stroue  against  him  hartelie,  nor  can  you  saie  they  con- 
sented freelye  to  his  choise  albeit  they  had  yeilded  the  election 
to  the  greater  parte,  for  this  is  but  in  a  sorte  &  not  simpHe  a  free 
consent.  And  yf  this  will  serue,  then  all  the  Churches  in  England 
maie  be  said  to  haue  chosen  freelye,  in  as  much  as  they  haue 
submitted  to  the  lawes,  which  order  the  elections  of  the  minis- 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


73 


ters  as  they  no  we  stand.  So,  then,  eyther  you  must  vngraple  or 
sinke  with  vs,  for  you  cannott  saie  that  waie  is  the  ordinance  of 
God  more  then  this,  God  haveing  mercifullye  lefte  the  particuler 
fashion  at  libertie,  that  the  Churches  might  serue  themselues  of 
one  or  another  manner  for  their  greatest  commoditye.  And  you 
verelye  are  too  masterlye  when  you  take  vpon  you  to  bynde  the 
spouse  of  Christe  where  her  Lord  hath  left  her  free./ 
I  conclude  therefore,  that  neyther  the  scriptures  aleadged  nor 
your  reason  haue  confirmed  this  proposition,  that  the  Lord's 
waye  by  which  the  ministerye  must  enter  is  the  free  election  of 
the  people,  which  yf  you  had  proued,  it  would  haue  showed  that 
a  sinne  is  committed  by  breach  vpon  the  Churches  libertye,  but 
not  the  ministery  thus  imposed  is  therefore  simplie  vnlawfuU;  or 
that  the  Churches  might  not  lawfullye  eate  the  good  meate  that 
is  minced  &  put  into  theire  mouthes,  because  they  are  not  suf- 
fered to  carue  it  for  themselues,  as  were  convenient.  Nowe  lett 
vs  examyne  your  assumption  touching  St  Andrewes./ 

But  the  waye  by  which  the  ministers  of  St  Andrewes  enter  is  not    *  Mr  Robinso 
the  playne  waye  of  the  Lord  hut  the  crooked  path  of  a  Lord 
Bishop's  ordinacion  &°  approbacyon  b°  of  a  patron's  presen- 
tacyon,  yea  whether  the  people  will  or  noe. 

The  byas  of  humane  corruption  male  drawe  men  wrong  euen  in  *Answer 
the  streightest  alley,  but  the  cause  is  then  in  the  byas,  not  in  the 
waye.  Nowe  howe  crookedlye  some  patrons  present  &  Bishops 
sometymes  admitte  should  not  be  remembred  without  greife, 
nor  can  be  denyed  without  impudencye,  but  to  showe  that  this  is 
the  fault  of  the  men,  not  of  the  order,  it  ought  to  be  considered 
that  some  patrons  doe  present  &  the  Bishopps  sometymes  admitt 
farre  worthier  men  then  even  a  good  people  would  chuse  for 
themselues,  and  while  you  seeme  to  immagine  the  path  of  populer 
election  to  be  so  right  on,  you  admire  [?]  that  you  knowe  not, 
consider  not,  what  hath  beene  &  seeme  to  thinke  anie  thing  better 
then  that  which  is  present,  which  is  noe  point  of  wisedome./ 
But  to  passe  by  that,  I  marvayle  howe  a  man  professing  sin- 
ceritye,  as  you  doe,  could  force  his  conscyence  so  farre  as  to  saie, 
that  the  ministery  of  St  Andrewes  came  not  in  by  the  Lord's 
plaine  waye  of  election,  seyng  you  knowe  the  minister  therof  is 


74 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


freelye  chosen  by  the  congregacyon  not  by  the  patron  nor  by 
the  Bishop.  And  yf  you  repHe  the  Bishop  must  gyue  his  appro- 
bacyon,  I  answere  the  confirmacyon  of  the  Bishop  denyes  not  free 
election  to  the  people,  no  more  then  to  the  patrone.  But  you 
thinke  it  a  small  matter  to  confound  theis  two  faculties,  as  one 
should  sale  the  knightes  of  ParHament  are  not  freelye  chosen, 
because  the  kinge  confirmes  the  election./ 
But  to  carye  this  vntruthe  you  obiect  it  to  your  self  &  offer  a 
defense  sayinge: 

Robinson  Yf  it  he  answered  that  St  Andrewes  hath  the  choise  of  her  min- 
isters, I  doe  instance  that  the  libertye  it  hath  nothing  helpeth,  all 
thinges  beyng  rightly  considered./ 

*Answer  If  it  be  truelye  answered  that  St  Andrewes  hath  the  choise  of 
her  ministers,  then  is  your  assumption  false,  and  your  argument 
against  that  ministerye  (in  respect  of  the  entrance  therof )  vtterlye 
outgrowne,  but  you  tell  vs  it  helpeth  not.  Indeed,  if  to  enter  by 
that  waie  which  euen  nowe  you  said  was  the  high  and  holie  waye 
of  the  Lord  will  not  help,  what  help  then  ?  what  will  please  you  ? 
verelye  nothing  helps  to  perswade,  when  men  resolue  to  be  per- 
swaded  by  nothing,  but  why  helps  it  not  ? 


*Mr  Robinson 


For  first  St  Andrewes  is  not  that  Church  ofChriste,  that  heauenlie 
lerusalem,  which  Christe  hath  enfranchised  with  that  and  the  like 
liberties.  It  is  not  a  people  separated  &*  sanctefied  from  the 
world  into  holye  covenaiit  with  God,  but  a  confused  asemblie,  &* 
so  in  that  confusion  hath  her  self  receyued  noe  power  from  Christe, 
&'  so  can  gyue  none  to  anye  other./ 

*Answer  All  this  graunted  would  not  vphould  your  assumption,  which  is 
de  facto  not  de  iure,  wherein  you  denyed  St  Andrewes  minister 
to  haue  entred  by  the  free  election  of  that  Church  to  which  he 
semes,  for  were  the  election  voyd,  yett  it  might  be  voluntarilye, 
which  you  denyed./ 

Secondlye,  in  this  argument  you  begg  the  question,  as  yf  you 
could  not  disproue  the  entrance  of  that  ministerye,  vnles  we 
graunt  you  that  assemblie  to  be  noe  true  Church  of  Christe, 
which  you  knowe  we  denye,  yett  we  confesse  it  is  not  that  Church 
of  Christ,  that  heauenlie  lerusalem,  which  is  the  mother  of  vs  all, 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


75 


into  which  no  vncleane  thing  can  enter;  nor  is  youres  at  Leyden 
or  Amstredam  vnles  you  be  the  Catholike  Church.  But  it  is  a 
small  thing  with  you  &  your  partie  oftentymes  to  confound  the 
Catholike  Church,!  which  consistes  onelie  of  the  first  borne  whose 
names  are  written  in  heauen,  &  the  particuler  visible  Churches, 
wherein  male  be  electe  and  reprobate,  vesselles  of  honor  &  of 
dishonor,  &  so  to  abuse  your  selues.  But  you  meane  to  denye 
that  St  Andrewes  is  anie  true  visible  Church,  saying.  It  is  not  a 
people  separate  &*  sanctefied,  but  a  confused  assemblie,  &'c./ 
This  we  haue  disproued  before,  haueing  shewed  that  ho  we  euer 
there  male  be  in  that  assembUe  some  notorious  offenders  (which 
is  more  then  I  knowe),  yett  all  of  them  are  by  profession  sepa- 
rated vnto  God  in  an  holy  covenant,  which  externall  profession 
is  that  which  giues  the  essence  to  a  visible  Church  in  that  it  is 
visible,  as  some  of  your  owne  against  them  selues  confes./ 
But  you  confound,  first,  internall  sanctetye,  which  is  essencyall 
to  euery  true  member  of  Christe,  with  the  outward  profession, 
which  geives  beyng  to  a  visible  Church  in  that  it  is  visible;  & 
secondlye,  the  solemnitie  of  declaring  the  covenant  with  the 
covenant  it  self  as  one  should  confound  the  kinges  title  or  en- 
trance to  the  crowne  with  the  solemnetie  of  his  coronation,  which 
made  him  not  to  be  king  anie  more  then  he  was  without  it.  And 
thus  your  selves  confoundyng  different  thinges,  you  crye  out 
of  confusion  in  the  Churches./ 

Wherefore,  this  instance  is  void  &  male  be  thus  inverted,  St 
Andrew's  is  a  true  visible  Church  of  Christ,  therefore  it  hath 
power  from  Christ  to  elect  a  minister,  &  the  election  is  good./ 
Your  second  reason  followes,  but  ere  we  goe  further  lett  me  praye 
you  no  we  to  marke,  that  yf  all  your  principles  be  true,  it  is  vnpos- 
sible  that  euer  there  should  be  true  Church  or  true  minister 
while  the  world  stands,  for  you  hould : 

First,  that  the  ministerye  of  Appostles  &  prophets  &  evangelistes, 
which  were  sent  to  plant  &  water  sundrye  Churches,  is  for  euer 
ceased,  which  is  true./ 

You  hould  that  other  ministerye  then  Christe  hath  ordeyned  maie 
not  be  comunicated  with,  &  this  is  described  (saie  you),  Eph:  4, 
where  (besides  the  former  nowe  expired)  are  onely  pastors  & 
teachers,  &  this  is  (saie  you)  Christes  vnalterable  ordinance,  &c., 


[t  Witnes  a  litle 
pamphlett  in- 
tituled A  Dis- 
scription  of  the 
Visible  Church, 
printed  1589, 
where  to  the 
visible  Churches 
are  ascribed  the 
priuiledges  of  the 
Catholick  Church 
&  a  later  pamph- 
lett called  Posi- 
tions of  a  True 
Church,  from  the 
20  article  to  29, 
contrary  to  it 
selfe  in  other 
articles  as  35  & 
the  end  of  39 
article.]] 


[Mr  Ains worth's 
Positions  con- 
cerning a  True 
Church,  article 
39  in  the  later 
part  of  it.] 


76 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


[Mr  Barow  his 
conference  with 
Mr  Egerton] 


to  which  onelie  the  blessing  is  promised,  all  others  (saye  your 
fellowes)  are  antichristian./ 

You  hould  that  there  can  be  noe  true  pastors  or  teachers  but 
such  as  be  called  by  the  free  election  of  that  Church  to  which 
they  must  minister./ 

That  since  the  apostacye  of  Antichrist  there  can  be  no  true 
Church  that  hath  this  power  of  calling  a  minister  but  such  as  is 
gathered  by  the  doctrine  &  ministerye  of  the  word  &  drawen 
into  an  holy  covenant  with  God  voluntarelye./ 
,*Answer  Nowe,  yf  egge  &  bird  be  distroyed,  I  meane  Church  &  ministerye, 
as  you  imagine,  &  the  one  cannott  be  without  the  other,  riddle  & 
tell  me  which  shall  be  first,  &  where  we  shall  beginne,  whether  at 
the  bird  or  att  the  egg,  whether  at  the  ministerye  or  at  the 
Church  ?  Not  at  the  Church,  for  that  must  be  gathered  by  a 
ministerye  of  God's  appoyntment,  not  at  the  ministerye,  for 
there  can  be  none  but  pastors  &  teachers,  &  these  cannott  exercise 
a  ministerye  without  a  calHng,  nor  haue  a  calling  but  from  a  true 
Church,  which  must  not  be  compelled  by  the  maiestrate,  but 
gathered  by  doctrine  of  the  word  into  a  voluntarye  covenant 
with  God./  If  you  saie  that  till  the  Churches  be  gathered,  there 
maie  be  another  ministerye  then  that  of  Appostles,  prophets, 
evangelistes,  pastors,  or  teachers,  then  you  confes  Christ  hath 
not  taken  order  for  all  those  kinds  of  ministeryes  which  should 
be  needfull  for  the  gathering  together  of  all  the  saintes,  con- 
trarye  to  Ephe.  4,  by  your  selues  alleadged,  &  that  there  maie 
be  some  other  ministery  lawfullye  &  profitablie  vsed,  then  he 
hath  ordeyned,  which  you  denye./ 

Looke  about  you  well  &  see  that  you  are  wrapped  vp  in  your 
owne  cobweb,  81  eyther  must  breake  it  &  lett  the  flie  goe,  or  be 
swept  awaie  with  it  &  her.  Nowe  God  giue  you  a  wise  hearte  to 
consider  this  well,  &  thus  I  come  to  your  second  argument: 


*Mr  Robinson  Secondlie,  St  Andrewes  hath  not  the  libertie  eyther  to  enioye 
anye  minister  though  neuer  so  holye,  or  to  remoue  anie  though 
never  so  prophane,  but  at  the  will  of  the  Bishop,  theire  6"  their 
minister's  spirituall  lord./ 

*Answer    They  cannot  enioye  him  without  the  Bishop's  consent,  therefore 
they  did  not  freelye  chose  him.    It  followes  not,  for  a  man  maie 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


11 


choose  her  voluntarelye  to  be  his  wife,  whome  he  cannott  enioye 
without  consent  of  others.  The  Lord  Maior  of  London  cannott 
exercise  his  office  whether  the  King's  Maiestie  will  or  noe,  yett 
the  cittye  hath  the  free  choise  of  him.  Approbacyon  &  election 
are  two  thinges,  Sir,  nor  is  the  freedome  of  election  taken  awaye 
by  referrence  to  approbacion./  Againe  to  sale  they  cannott 
turne  of  their  ministers  without  the  Bishop's  consent,  therefore 
they  haue  nott  a  free  choise  of  him,  is  as  one  should  saie,  A  man 
cannott  put  awaye  his  wife  without  the  consent  of  the  la  we, 
maiestrate,  or  Churche,  noe  not  for  anye  faulte,  therefore  he  had 
not  his  free  choise  of  her,  by  which  reason  also  one  male  as  well 
proue  that  noe  member  of  anye  Church  hath  his  free  election  of 
his  minister,  because  he  can  neyther  enioye  nor  remove  the  same, 
but  by  the  will  of  the  greater  parte  of  that  congregation./ 
Secondly,  I  denie  your  assertion,  for  St  Andrewes  (having  the 
right  of  choosing)  male  by  the  constitucyon  of  the  Churches  of 
England  &  by  course  of  lawe  enioye  anie  good  minister  it  shall 
choose,  whether  the  Bishop  will  or  noe,  yf  they  choose  such  an 
one  as  is  without  exception  in  the  eye  of  the  lawe,  &  male  remoue 
anie  one  whether  the  Bishop  will  or  noe,  yf  he  be  subiect  to  such 
exceptions  as  the  lawes  haue  adiudged  worthie  such  a  punish- 
ment./ 

But  it  seemes  you  thinke  the  Churches  haue  no  Ubertye,  vnles 
without  reference  to  anie  cannons,  officers,  or  anie  others,  they 
maie  at  their  pleasure  vnsadle  their  riders  that  should  gouerne 
them,  which  Ubertie  to  the  multitude  of  fraile  men  were  worse 
then  want  of  it,  &  to  the  ministery  a  miserable  vasseladge,  of 
which  some  of  your  predecessores  haue  had  experience,  your  self 
maie  &  drinke  as  you  haue  brewed./ 
Thus  much  to  your  argument./ 

As  touching  the  title  of  spirituall  lord,  which  you  marke  the 
Bishop  withall,  by  which  also  some  of  your  sorte  would  proue 
the  Bishops  to  be  antichristian,  as  takeing  vpon  them  that 
spirituall  lordship  ouer  the  Church  which  is  proper  to  Christe. 
It  is  needfull  to  beseech  you  not  to  abuse  the  Lord's  poore  people 
or  your  selues  anie  more  with  ambiguityes  or  captions  of  words 
as  herein  you  doe,  for  because  the  comon  vse  of  speech ''  calles 
them  lords  spirituall  for  distinction  from  those  barones  or  lords 


[Mr  Browne  and 
Mr  Harrison  & 
now  lately  (as  I 
heare)  Mr 
Smith.] 


[Mr  lohnson  in 
his  2  reason 
against 

hearing  the  minis- 
ters of  England, 
page  21.] 

\y  As  the  preface 
of  some  actes  of 
Parliament 
alledged  by  Mr 
Johnson.] 


78  AN  ANSWER  TO 

whose  imployment  is  not  in  spirituall  or  ecclesiasticall  affaires, 
you  snatch  at  the  phrase  &  turne  it  to  a  cleane  other  meaning,  as 
spirituall  lord  importeth  one  which  ruleth  in  the  spiritt  or  con- 
scyence  which  is  proper  to  Christe.   Nowe  me  thinkes  you  cannott 
but  knowe  that  their  lordship  is  a  mere  temporall  honor  not 
necessarelye  anexed  to  their  bishoprickes  but  distinctly  super- 
added by  the  king,  of  whome  they  hould  it  as  a  seuerall  thing./ 
Nowe  to  saie  they  are  for  their  office  spirituall  &  they  are  lords, 
therefore  they  are  (in  your  sence)  spirituall  lords  is  a  poore 
[t  a  diuisis  ad    sophisticall  tricke,t  by  which  a  man  male  proue  that  you  are 
coniunda.']        also  a  master  teacher  which  is  proper  to  Christ,  for  you  are  a 
master  &  teacher,  therefore  you  are  a  master  teacher,  or  you  are 
lohn  &  you  are  the  Baptist  of  your  congregacyon,  therefore  you 
are  lohn  the  Baptist./   And  yf,  because  noe  creature  maie  par- 
take Christes  titles  in  that  sense  in  which  they  are  proper  to 
him,  you  fansie  that  noe  man  maie  beare  the  same  titles  in  anie 
[Nat.  23.  8.  9.    sense,  I  praie  you  take  heed  that  noe  man  call  you  master,  that 
^°J  your  children  call  you  not  father,  that  you  admitt  no  minister 

to  be  called  doctor  or  teacher,  because  these  be  proper  titles 
which  Christ  assumes  to  himself,  forbidding  all  others  to  bear 
them.  Indeed,  he  forbids  all  others  to  beare  them  in  such  a 
sense  as  he  claimes  them  in,  but  not  otherwise,  &  so  in  the 
rest./ 

Fynallye,  you  should  knowe  that  the  Bishops  of  England  profes 
not  to  haue  anie  power  of  making  lawes  to  bynd  the  conscyence, 
but  ahhorre  that  as  antichristian,  nor  doe  professedlie  vnder- 
take  in  externall  gouerment  anie  more  then  by  lawe  of  the  na- 
tyon  is  committed  to  them,  which  is  noe  more  lording  ouer  the 
Churches  then  in  anie  forme  of  gouerment  is  gyuen  to  the  minis- 
ters therof .  Howeuer,  all  haue  not  so  much  put  into  their  hands 
as  our  Bishops  haue./ 

If  in  respect  of  their  wealth  &  dignitie  they  forgett  them  selues, 
their  cheifest  honor,  &  their  brethren,  &  take  to  much  pompe  & 
pride  vpon  them,  I  wish  noe  more  to  excuse  their  sinne  therein 
then  the  pride  that  I  haue  found  in  myne  owne  hearte,  but 
without  flatterye  to  them  I  must  needs  saie  to  you,  that  you  and 
your  fellowes  show  more  spirituall  lordUnes  &  masterlynes  in 
iudginge,  censuring,  slightinge,  dispising,  &  discommuning  the 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


79 


Churches,  seruantes,  people,  &  graces  of  God,  then  anie  prelate 
that  euer  I  knew  or  heard  of  excepte  the  pope,  whose  ego  sum 
solus  you  haue  turned  to  nos  soli  sumus,  as  yf  God  had  sent  Mr 
lohnson  &  you  as  the  fire  from  heauen  &  had  on  earth  no  true 
visible  Church  rightUe  gathered  &  constituted  in  his  worship  but 
yours  at  Leyden  &  his  at  Amsterdam,  whose  members  are  ad- 
mitted vpon  a  kind  of  defiance  first  made  to  all  other  the  visible 
Churches  of  Christ  as  standing  in  some  false  worship,  &c./ 
Came  the  Ghospell  from  you,  or  came  it  to  you  alone  ?  The 
Lord  humble  your  spiritt,  &  then  your  eyes  shalbe  opened./ 
Come  we  to  your  third  reason :/ 

Thirdlie,  St  Andrewes  is  not  possessed  of  that  poore  liber  tie  it    *  Mr  Robinson 

vseth  by  anye  imediate  spirituall  right  from  Christ,  as  the  bodye 

from  the  head,  the  wife  from  the  husband,  but  by  a  symonaicall 

purchase  from  the  patrone,  as  the  most  prophane  assemblie  (in 

the  kingdome  in  which  not  a  man  feareth  God)  might  purchase 

it,  &  so  that  spirituall  libertye  which  Christ  hath  bought  with 

his  blood,  &'  wherein  all  Christians  ought  to  standfast,  they  buy 

with  a  peece  of  money,  committing  herein  simonie  as  great  as 

Simon  did./ 

They  haue  not  their  libertye  of  free  election  immediatlye  from  *Answer 
Christ  but  by  simonaicall  purchase  from  the  patron.  Therefore, 
their  minister  entred  not  by  their  free  &  voluntarye  election  but 
was  thrust  vpon  them  by  the  patron  or  Bishop  against  their  will. 
Is  not  this  your  argument  ?  Is  it  not  to  confirme  your  assump- 
tion ?  Is  it  not  impertinent  theretoe  ?  for  though  their  election 
were  simonaicall  &  voyd,  yet  might  it  be  voluntarye.  Many 
thinges  make  frustrate  free  elections,  but  nothing  takes  awaye 
freedom  in  electing  but  delusion  or  force./ 
But  yf  it  serue  not  to  confirme  your  assumption  for  which  it  is 
brought,  it  maye  seeme  to  serue  your  maine  purpose,  which  is  to 
showe  the  vnlawfull  entrance  of  the  minister.  Lett  vs  therefore 
examine  the  truth  &  weight  of  it  to  that  intent  also,  alwayes  re- 
membred  that  yf  this  argument  haue  anie  strength  in  it,  it 
showes  that  you  haue  weaklie  affirmed  the  high  &  holie  waye  of 
the  Lord  for  the  ministers'  entrance  to  be  the  free  choise  of  that 
Church  vnto  which  they  doe  serue,  seyng  nowe  you  finde  that  a 


8o  AN  ANSWER  TO 

free  choise  is  not  sufficient  thereto,  vnles  the  Church  hould  that 
libertie  ymediatlye  from  Christ,  &c./ 

No  we  to  examine  the  waight  of  your  argument./  It  behoueth 
first,  to  consider  that  ould  distinction  of  ius  ad  rem  &  ius  in  re. 
The  Church  of  St  Andrewe  hath  right  vnto  anie  Ubertie  which 
Christ  hath  giuen  everye  particuler  Church  eo  nomine  immedi- 
atlye  from  Christ,  but  ius  in  re,  or  possession  of  all  her  Ubertyes, 
she  hath  not  imediathe  nor  is  necessary  she  should  haue,  for 
though  title  vnto  her  endowmentes  must  euer  be  immediate  be- 
cause that  title  yssues  onelye  out  of  the  purchase  &  guifte  of  her 
Lord,  yett  actuall  possession  male  admitt  the  mediation  of  an 
administrator  &  in  manie  thinges  must,  as  for  example,  the 
Church  hath  right  vnto  the  sacramentes  as  scales  of  her  covenant 
with  God  imediathe  from  Christ,  &  yett  hath  she  not  the  vse  of 
this  right  immediatly  from  Christ,  but  by  the  mediation  of  a 
lawfull  minister.  She  hath  right  vnto  the  hbertie  of  worshipping 
God  at  anye  tyme  or  in  anie  place  immediatlie  from  Christes 
purchase,  but  the  exercise  of  this  right  touching  the  particuler 
tyme  &  place  of  meetyng  to  worship  shee  hath  not  imediatlye 
from  him,  but  by  mediation  of  the  magistrate  in  whose  domin- 
ions she  is  or  her  owne  officers  or  orders./ 
So  in  the  case  of  electing  &  ordeyning  ministers,  the  right  vnto 
them  depends  immediatlie  on  Christ  his  will  &  Testament,  but 
the  vse  of  this  right  is  not  immediate  nor  can  be,  in  asmuch  as 
not  Christ  himself  but  some  forme  of  election  or  ordination  doth 
put  the  Church  into  possession  of  this  benefitt./ 
If  you  obiect  that  yet  the  Churches  male  not  (touching  their  pos- 
session of  this  right)  depend  vpon  anie  power  without  themselues, 
I  answere  first,  that  yf  it  be  within  themselues,  yett  it  is  nott  im- 
mediatlye  vpon  Christ  but  in  the  former  respect,  &  secondUe, 
that  this  is  a  meere  fansie  made  out  of  your  braines  to  cast  of  all 
interest  (not  of  Bishops  alone)  but  of  sinods,  maiestrates,  or  anie 
other  then  your  selues  in  the  election  &  ordinacyon  of  ministers, 
&  is  directUe  contrarye  to  the  examples  which  we  finde  in  the 
scriptures  foremencioned,  wherein  we  finde  howe  the  Appostles 
&  evangeUstes  did  appointe  elders  to  the  Churches  which  could 
not  haue  beene  in  anie  calling  lawfull,  yf  your  conceyte  of  hould- 
ing  all  our  rightes  immediatUe  from  Christ  were  true,  for  the 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  8 1 

Appostles  were  not  Christ,  nor  did  those  Churches  posses  their 
ministers  immediatlie  from  Christ,  and  yett  lost  not  their  title 
theretoe  nor  changed  their  tenure./ 

And  yf  you  will  not  be  contentious,  you  must  confes  that  election 
is  rather  a  meanes  of  possession  then  eyther  title  or  thing  itself 
purchased  by  Christ,  for  that  thing  is  a  ministerye  to  attend  vpon 
the  Church.  Now,  as  all  the  thinges  which  Christ  hath  gyuen 
vnto  his  Church  are  held  immediatly  vpon  him,  so  the  convey- 
ance &  possession  of  the  thinges,  yea  euen  of  the  spirituall  graces, 
is  mediate  ordinarelie  as  of  the  Ghospell  &  sacramentes,  &c.,  & 
why  not  ministers  ?  But  you  fare  as  one  that  will  not  take  his 
father's  legacy  at  the  hands  of  anie  executor  or  administrator, 
because  he  hath  right  vnto  it  by  his  father's  onelie  guifte,  not 
descerning  a  testator  from  an  executor,  a  guifte  from  the  ad- 
ministracyon./ 

Wheras  you  adde  (that  the  Church  should  stand  fast  in  that  which 
Christ  hath  purchased) ,  it  is  ill  applied  to  this  case  of  the  manner 
of  election,  vnles  you  could  proue  that  this  is  such  a  libertye  as 
Christ  hath  purchased  with  his  blood,  which  you  ought  not  once 
to  imagine,  seing  the  contrary  to  this  was  noe  parte  of  her  bondage 
before  his  commyng,  for  he  purchased  Hbertie  in  those  thinges 
onlye  in  which  his  people  were  before  imbondaged,  that  is  from 
sinne,  death,  the  curse  &  rigor  of  the  lawe,  &  yoake  of  externall 
rites  &  ceremonies,  which  were  then  necessarye  to  be  obserued./ 
If  beyond  these  thinges  you  shall  tie  her  for  conscyence'  sake  to 
obseruacyons  not  prescribed  by  him,  you  doe  not  mainteyne  her 
libertyes,  but  vnder  the  name  therof  put  her  into  bondage./ 
If  the  manner  of  election  had  beene  given  to  the  Churches  to  be 
held  immediatlie  vppon  Christ  as  you  suppose,  &  that  St.  An- 
drewes  had  for  money  bought  of  the  vsurpacyon  &  incumbrance 
of  the  patron  as  of  a  false  titler,  this  doth  not  make  her  owne  title 
from  Christ  to  be  void,  quia  vtile  non  tollitur  ah  invtile,  noe  more 
then  the  true  title  of  anie  man's  right  is  lost  when  he  doth  to- 
gether with  his  owne  conioyne  &  pretend  such  other  weake 
titles  as  he  has  bought  in  for  his  quiet.  They  which  buy  of  the 
Turke  their  Ubertye  to  worship  God  aright  lose  not  the  Ubertye 
which  Christ  hath  given  them  there  vnto./ 
But  sale  you,  this  is  simonie,  as  greate  as  Simon's  was./  Simonie 


82 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


[Caietan  in 
Sum.    Tho.  . 
Sum.  AngeJ.  & 
olhers.3 ' 


&  as  greate  as  Simon's  was  ?  Surelye  eyther  your  eyes  or  myne 
are  not  matches,  not  myne  yf  this  be  simonye  like  Simon's,  not 
youres  yf  it  be  not./  No  we  lett  vs  see  what  simonie  is,  &  what 
it  was  in  Simon  of  whome  it  is  so  called,  &  then  we  shall  see 
howe  like  this  apple  is  to  that  oyster./ 

Simonie  is  the  buying  &  selling  of  a  spirituall  thing,  sayth  Caietan, 
or  that  which  is  anexd  to  a  spirituall  thing,  sale  others./ 
This  in  Simon  was  a  desire  to  buy  a  spirituall  &  supernaturall 
facultie  by  sale  whereof  he  might  make  money./ 
Nowe  yf  the  right  of  presentacyon  or  patronage  be  neyther  a 
spirituall  thing  in  it  self  nor  imediatlye  anexed  to  a  spirituall 
thing  as  the  minister's  maintenance  is  to  his  ministerye,  then  can 
it  not  be  simonie  to  buy  or  sell  it.    Nowe  neuer  man  vnderstood 
the  right  of  patronage  to  be  a  spirituall  thing  or  properUe  & 
imediatlye  anexed  to  a  spirituall  thing.     And  howe  farre  the 
buying  of  a  patronage  is  from  Simon's  sinne  lett  vs  consider./ 
Simon  would  haue  bought  a  mere  spirituall  facultie.    The  parish 
of  St  Andrewes  buy  a  meer  externall  &  legall  title  of  naming  a 
fitt  man  for  their  choice./     Simon  would  haue  bought  this  spirit- 
uall thing  to  make  a  temporall  profiitt  of  it.    These  men  buy  a 
temporall  thinge  to  reape  a  spirituall  profitt  therebye./ 
Simon  would  haue  for  money  that  which  noe  man  can  compas, 
basely e  conceyting  the  heauenlye  guifte./ 

These  men  buy  for  money  that  which  you  saie  anie  parish  in  the 
land  might  posseblie  buy  for  money./  Nowe  looke  on  them  to- 
gether &  see  howe  they  resemble  one  another./ 
To  giue  something  for  avoydance  of  an  vniust  vexacyon  or  im- 
pediment is  held  no  simonie,  no  not  in  case  of  a  benefice.  The 
sharpest  whippers  of  this  fault  neuer  drewe  the  buying  of  a  pat- 
ronage into  the  note  of  simonie,  but  what  will  not  affections  doe 
yf  through  them  as  it  were  through  colored  glasse  we  shall  be- 
hould  thinges  &  soe  esteeme  them./ 

If  you  giue  money  for  the  place  you  meete  to  worship  God  in,  is 
it  simonie  ?  If  your  people  gyue  you  money  for  preaching  to 
them,  praying  with  them,  is  it  simonie  ?    If  for  the  bread  &  wine 


^  This  note  is  partly  illegible.  It  refers  to  Cajetan's  commentary  on  the 
Summa  Theologica  of  Thomas  Aquinas.  The  reference  in  the  third  line  is  mani- 
festly to  the  Summa  itself. 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


83 


vsed  at  the  Lord's  table  the  communicantes  giue  money,  is  it 
simonie  ?  And  yett  these  thinges  come  as  neare  to  Simon's 
sinne  as  the  buying  of  a  patron's  title,  that  they  maye  choose 
their  owne  minister./ 

Wherefore,  this  not  beyng  simonie,  nor  forfeyture  or  renuncia- 
tion of  such  right  as  you  sale  Christ  hath  gyuen  his  Churches, 
but  only  a  remoue  of  an  incumbrance,  it  restes  that  the  minister 
of  St  Andrew's  was  freelie  chosen  by  his  owne  congregacyon, 
which  you  denyed,  &  therefore  (by  your  owne  rule)  is  (in  respect 
of  his  entrance)  a  lawfull  minister  vnlawfullie  and  sinnefuUy  for- 
saken of  you  more  sinnefuUy  traduced,  of  which  God  giue  you 
grace  to  repent  in  tyme./ 
Nowe  come  we  to  your  sixt  &  last  argument  for  your  separacion :/ 


Where  (he  power  of  the  Lord  lesus  Christ  for  excomunication  dr 
the  vse  of  the  keyes  is  wanting,  there  I  male  not  stand  a  member 
or  haue  comunion./ 

You  doe  confound  the  vse  of  the  keyes  &  excomunication,  as  if 
they  were  one  thing  or  allwayes  conioyned,  forgetting  that  by 
the  key  of  knowledg  &  of  doctrine  men  are  lett  in  or  shutt  out 
of  God's  kingdome,  bound  or  loosed  in  earth  &  in  heauen  without 
excomunication,  whose  vse  is  onelie  to  exclude  the  inordinate 
members  from  externall  comunion  with  the  Churches./ 
Which  thinges  yf  you  still  hould  to  be  one,  then  must  you  yeild 
backe  the  key  of  excomunication  vnto  the  ministers  onelie,  to 
whome  (&  not  vnto  the  people)  Christ  committed  those  keyes  of 
kingdome  of  heauen./ 

But  haveing  noted  this  confusion  in  your  proposicion  lett  vs  see 
howe  you  proue  that  where  excomunication  wants,  a  man  male 
haue  noe  comunion  in  the  worship  of  God./ 

The  want  of  this  power  argues  the  Church  not  to  be  Christes 
Church,  for  Christ  hath  giuen  this  power  to  his  Churche.  Math. 
18.  15.  16.  17./ 

I  denye  your  consequence,  for 

Christ  hath  giuen  pastors  and  teachers  to  his  Church,  therefore, 

whensoeuer  theise  are  wanting,  the  Church  ceaseth,  or  is  not. 


[Mr]* 
Robinson 
[his  vi  Argu- 
ment] 

*Answer 


[Math.  16.  19. 
loh.  22.  23.] 


*  Robinson 
[It  was  written 
[by]  Mr  Robin- 
son his,  but 
should  no  doubt 
haue  bene  this 
power,  &  so  I 
make  it.] 

*  Answer 


84 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


[t  r.  Cor.  3.  Christe  hath  giuen  all  f  thinges  to  his  Church,  therefore  yf  it 

versibus  vltimis.]    want  anye  thing,  it  is  not  his  Church./ 

Christ  hath  geven  sacramentes  to  his  Church,  therefore  yf  it 
want  eyther  of  them  at  anie  tyme  by  anie  meanes  of  persecution, 
it  is  not  his  true  Church./ 

God  hath  geven  a  man  two  eares,  two  eyes,  two  hands,  two  legges, 
therefore  yf  he  want  anie  of  these  he  is  no  true  man.  From  the 
want  of  a  parte  to  the  denyall  of  the  whole  is  noe  good  argument. 
Lett  vs  see  yf  the  next  be  better./ 

*  Robinson  It  is  want  of  a  meanes  of  gayning  sinners  to  God  6*  of  saluation, 
I.  Cor.  5.  4.  5;  Math.  18.  15./ 
*Answer  Of  regaining,  not  properlie  of  gainyng,  for  excomunication 
bringes  not  in  strangers,  but  maie  recouer  some  that  are  out  of 
the  waie,  so  this  is  a  meanes  of  saluation,  but  onelie  to  the  inordi- 
nate which  are  not  a  lawe  to  themselues,  not  vnto  all.  And  the 
want  of  it  is  a  want  (not  of  all  meanes  or  the  onelie  meanes)  but 
of  a  meanes,  therefore  we  maie  not  ioyne  with  the  Churches  in 
the  vse  of  the  other  meanes  of  saluation.  Doe  you  not  see  ? 
Where  anie  meanes  are  wantyng,  there  we  maie  hould  no  fellow- 
ship with  the  Churches.  And  in  conscience  haue  you  all  the 
meanes  of  salvacyon  in  your  assemblie  or  those  onelye  that  be 
simplie  necessary  ?  want  you  nothing  ?  neuer  Church  but  Lao- 
dicea  wanted  nothing.  Rev.  3./  Want  of  anie  thing  needful! 
proues  a  mayme  but  not  a  dissolucion  of  the  Churches,  &  yf  you 
think  comunion  maie  not  be  held  where  anye  meanes  are  wantyng, 
make  hast  to  heauen  for  noe  Church  on  earth  will  enterteyne 
you./ 

If  you  replie  that  this  is  not  onelie  a  meanes  but  a  necessarye 
meanes,  I  answere.  It  is  not  simplie  necessarye,  for  then  noe  man 
could  be  saved  but  he  must  be  excomunicate,  nor  necessarye  to 
anie  but  such  as  be  vnrulie  &  out  sitt  other  meanes,  nor  abso- 
lutelie  necessarye  to  these,  beyng  possible  that  without  excomuni- 
cation they  maie  be  recouered  &  often  seene./  Let  vs  see  your 
3  reason./ 

CMr]  *  Robinson  It  makes  the  Church  Bahilon,  an  hahitacion  of  devills,  an  hould  of 
euerye  foule  spiritt  &*  a  cage  of  euerye  vncleane  &"  hatefull  byrd./ 
Rev.  18.  2.1 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


85 


The  want  of  excomunication  whollye  doth  vndoubtedlye  hazard    *Answer 

the  puretye  of  the  Churches  while  the  impunetye  of  some  em- 

bouldens  others  to  polute  themselues;  vppon  which  respect  the 

Appostle  commanded  the  excomunication  of  the  incestious  [in] 

Corinth.    Wherefore  the  want  of  it  must  needs  be  confessed  a 

greyvous  maime  &  the  abuse  of  it  no  lesse,  which  God  will  cer- 

teynUe  revendg  vpon  those  that  stop  his  waie  &  serue  their  owne 

turnes  of  his  hoHe  ordinances./ 

But  to  saie  it  make  the  Church  Babilon,  &c.,  is  an  ouerreach  of 

a  passionate  or  vnadvised  minde,  some  men  in  commendyng  or 

dispraising  neuer  thinke  enough  to  be  spoken,  till  they  haue  said 

to  much,  yett  to  proue  this  fiery  assertion  you  cyte  a  text,  Rev. 

1 8.  2.    I  marvaile  you  feare  not  to  prostitute  the  sacred  word  of 

God  vnto  your  desires.    Doth  Rev.  i8.  2  proue  that  the  want  of 

excomunication  makes  the  Church  Babilon,  &c.    Yf  not,  you 

haue  taken  the  name  of  God  in  vaine,  whose  word  you  abuse./ 

This  place  speakes  not  of  pollucyon  by  sinne  or  sinners  as  you 

imagine,  but  of  Babilon's  (that  is  Rome's)  punishment  &  ruine, 

saying  Babilon  is  false,t  &c.    And  to  expresse  the  horrible  des-    [f  In  the  time 

solacion  therof  doth  vse  such  phrases,  as  the  prophettes  did  to    present  for  to 

expresse  the  vtter  dessolacyon  of  other  places,  signifying  that  it    .^^^^^     f  •.  g^  '• 

should  not  be  inhabited  anie  more  of  men,  but  of  divills,  dragons,    vsed  in  scrip- 

satyres,  vultures,  scrich  oules,  &  such  other  Hke  vncoth  (&  by    ture.] 

the  law)  vncleane  beastes  &  birds  as  vse  to  dwell  in  solitarye 

places,  where  noe  man  frequenteth.    See  Isay  13.  20.  21.  22  & 

cap.  34.  II.  13.  14.  15;    ler.  50.  39.  40;    also  see  Brightman  ^  on 

Revel.  18.  2./ 

Secondlye,  yf  the  place  had  spoken  of  polucion  as  it  doth  not, 

would  it  followe  that  the  onelie  want  of  excomunicacyon  had 

beene  the  cause  of  it  ?  might  not  the  abuse  of  it  doe  as  much 

hurte  as  the  want  ?    Verehe,  Rome  neuer  wanted  the  power  of 

excomunication  but  surfetted  with  it  rather,  &  polluted  it  self 

rather  by  misguiding  then  by  wantyng  that  keye.     Come  we 

therefore  to  your  fourth  &  last  reason,  for  these  three  are  nought 

worth./ 

*  Thomas  Brightman   (1562-1607).     The  work  referred  to  appears  to  be  his 
Apocalypsis  Apocalypseos,  idest  Apocalypsis  .  .  .  illustrata,  1609,  2d  ed.  161 2. 


86 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


[Mr]  *  Robinson 

*Answer 
[i.] 

[2.] 
[3.] 


[It  seemes  Mr 
George  lohnson 
thought  his 
brother  & 
Church  of  Ams- 
tredam  could 
and  did  abuse  it 
grossely  by  his 
Discourse  of 
some  troubles 
and  excommuni- 
cations, printed 
1603.3 


//  bindes  me  inevitahlie  to  defile  my  self  in  manie  grevious  sinnes 
against  God  in  acknowledging  them  his  children  by  saying  Oure 
Father  with  them  who  by  their  workes  are  aparantlye  yett  the 
children  of  the  devill.    lo.  8.  44./ 
If  this  be  true  you  haue  reason  to  separate,  but  yf  this  be  false  & 
fantasticall,  then  your  sinne  remaines.     Let  vs  therefore  ex- 
amine./ 

First,  whether  it  (that  is  the  want  of  excomunication)  bindes 
you  inevitablie  to  defile  your  self. 

2^'^,  whether  those  that  deserue  to  be  excomunicate  be  the 
devill's  children  &  maye  be  soe  reputed. 

3"®,  whether  the  saying  Oure  Father  with  such  defiles  a  man  or 
noe.  In  all  which  if  it  appeare  to  you  that  you  haue  erred,  you 
will  (I  hope)  be  ready e  to  reforme  your  self  &  giue  glorye  to  God. 
Suppose  you  were  defiled  with  the  societye  of  the  devilles  chil- 
dren. Is  the  want  of  excomunication,  thinke  you,  the  onelie 
cause  of  their  beyng  in  the  Churches  ?  Why  maie  not  the  neglect 
of  it  as  at  Corynth,  i.  Cor.  5.  2,  or  abuse  as  among  the  lewes 
who  cast  out  the  children  of  God,  lo.  9,  effect  the  same  ill  ?  And 
are  you  sure  that  this  power  cannott  be  abused  or  neglected  by 
the  true  Churches  of  God  ?  Or  yf  it  maie,  then  doe  you  vn- 
wiselye  ascribe  that  effect  to  the  oneUe  want  of  excomunication, 
which  maie  arise  from  the  abuse  or  neglect  of  that  power.  Where 
it  is  ?/ 

Agayne,  do  you  imagine  that  excomunication  castes  all  the  devill's 
children  out  of  God's  Church,  where  it  is  righthe  vsed  ?  What 
hipocrites  and  all  ?  Or  are  hipocrites  none  of  the  devilles  chil- 
dren ?  Yf  neyther  of  both,  then  the  best  vse  of  excomunication 
never  assures  vs  the  election  of  all  the  devilles  children.  And 
then  it  is  absurd  to  saie  that  the  want  therof  byndes  you  to 
pollucyon  in  respect  of  the  presence  of  the  devill's  children  with 
whome  you  must  be  present  as  long  as  there  be  anie  hipocrites 
in  the  Church,  whether  excomunication  be  wanting  or  noe./ 
Secondlie,  you  take  it  that  all  such  grosse  offenders  as  ought  to 
be  excomunicate  are  apparantlie  the  devill's  children.  You 
meane  not  onelie  in  deed  so,  but  in  sight  soe,  which  is  a  damnable 
opinion  &  (if  you  sticke  to  it)  an  heresie./ 
For  you  take  it  as  yf  excomunication  were  not  of  anie  other  vse 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


87 


then  to  cast  the  devill's  children  out  of  God's  Church.    Think 
you  Mr  lohnson  tooke  his  father  &  brother  to  be  the  devill's 
children  when  he  did  excomunicate  them  ?    Verely,  methinkes 
his  harte  should  ake  to  haue  professed  that  opinion  of  them./ 
But  what  euer  he  &  you  thinke,  surelie  Paule  thought  not  so  of 
excomunication,  but  that  it  was  sometimes  a  medecyne  to  re- 
couer  the  children  of  God  out  of  their  sinnes  &  to  make  others 
take  heed,  i.  Cor.  5.  5;    who   also   bids  the  Thessalonians  to 
admonish  him  as  a  brother  whome  they  might  not  conuers  with 
familiarly,  &  forbids  them  to  count  him  as  an  enemye.    Yf  they 
must  count  him  not  an  enemye  but  a  brother,  then  not  a  childe 
of  the  devill  but  a  child  of  God,  though  separated  for  his  punish- 
ment from  the  familer  societie  of  the  saintes,  as  good  Miriam  was 
from  the  congregacion  of  God.    Numb.  12. 
Knowes  not  Mr  Robinson  that  the  deare  saintes  of  God  male  not 
onelie  fall  into  but  possibly  lie  in  some  grosse  sinne  which  male 
deserue  excomunication,  who  yett  neuer  become  the  children 
of  the  devill  ?    VereHe,  God  maie  make  you  knowe  to  your  cost, 
as  he  hath  done  other  of  his  poore  seruantes,  &  comonlie  doth 
those  that  knowe  not  howe  to  restore  such  as  are  fallen  with  the 
spirit  of  meeknes,  considering  them  selues  least  they  also  be 
tempted,  whose  pride  is  comonKe  curde  with  poison./ 
But  you  thinke  lo.  8.  44  will  warrant  you  to  take  those  that  stand 
in  anie  notorious  sinne  to  be  the  children  of  the  devill,  because 
Christ  so  calleth  certeyne  of  the  lewes.    And  are  you  as  Christ, 
whose  eyes  '^  are  as  a  flame  of  fire;   who  needed  ^  not  that  anie 
should  tell  him  what  was  in  man;  who  came  with  a  "  fanne  in  his 
hand,  that  lohn  Baptist  had  not;  who  knewe  from  the  begin- 
ning ^  who  should  betraie  him  &  that  one  of  the  twelue  was  a 
devill./ 

Or  haue  you  that  discerning  spiritt  of  Peter  to  finde  out  Ananias  " 
in  the  darke  &  Simon  ^  Magus  his  hearte,  or  of  Paule  to  knowe 
Elimas  '=  to  be  the  child  of  the  devill  &  accordinglie  to  censure  & 
to  smite  ?  If  not,  rise  vp  and  kisse  that  throne  of  iudgment  with 
blessing,  vnto  which  you  haue  so  vnadvisedlie  sitt  downe  &  doe 
not  dare  (for  you  are  a  man  &  a  sinner)  to  imitate  our  Lord  in 
that  which  he  did  as  God  f  or  his  Appostles,  in  that  which  the 
imediate  spiritt  of  God  did  in  them  or  directed  them  to  doe./ 


[_2.  Thess.  3.  14 
&  15  compared 
with  I.  Cor.  9. 
10.  II.] 


[Gal.  6.  I.] 


[}  Reuel.  I.  14J 
[''loh.  2.  25.] 
["Math.  3.  12.] 
\y  loh.  6.  64  et 
70.] 

["Acts-] 
[(•Act.  8.] 
["Act.  13.  10.] 


[t  See  Augustine 
vpon  that  place 
of  lo.  8.] 


88 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


[*  Verses  37, 
40, 
42, 
43, 


[t  Rom.  6.  16 
I.  loh.  3.  8. 
See  Zanchi  of 
this  point.3 


It  maie  be  obiected  that  Christ  giues  such  a  reason  as  by  which 
anie  man  maie  iudge  of  others,  when  he  saies  they  are  of  the 
devill,  because  his  workes  they  doe.  I  answere  that  Christ 
spake  not  simphe  of  euerye  evill  worke,  nor  meanes  that  euerye 
worke  of  the  devill  in  anie  man's  hand  is  a  note  of  the  devilles 
childe,  for  then  euerye  sinne  open  or  secrete  must  be  a  marke 
T^'n  of  a  childe  of  the  devill,  seeing  euerye  sinne  originallye  is  the 
devilles  worke,  &  then  I  praie  you,  where  will  you  finde  a  childe 
of  God  ? 

But  Christe  here  spake  speciallye  of  one  kinde  of  worke,  that  is, 
their  resistance  of  him  the  sonne  of  God  &  Saviour  sent  vnto 
them,  &  that  with  an  hatefull  &  murtherous  mynde,  wherein  they 
resembled  Satan  in  his  two  prime  qualities,  lying  &  murther. 
Nowe,  yf  you  thinke  anie  outward  vnrighteousnes  maie  be  as 
sure  a  marke  of  the  devill's  children  as  a  wilfull  resistance  of  the 
Gospell,  you  are  wonderfullie  wide./ 

It  maie  be  instanced,  that  Christ  speakes  generallie  of  sinne, 
verse  34.  He  that  committeth  sinne  is  the  seruant  of  it,  and 
therefore  that  when  anie  man  liues  in  anie  knowen  sinne  we  maie 
iudge  him  the  childe  of  the  devill.  I  answere  first,  that  yf  Christ 
by  sinne  (so  called  in  generall)  meanes  not  that  particuler  kinde 
which  he  after  expresseth,  as  it  seemes  he  doth,  yett  is  it  not  truelie 
to  be  inferred  that  euerie  man  is  the  child  of  the  devill,  that  is  at 
all  imbondaged  in  some  sinne,  as  Paules  complainte,  Ro.  7.  23, 
manifesteth,  but  onlie  such  as  are  merelie  subiected  theretoe. 
Nowe  there  is  a  greate  difference  betwixt  a  seruant  of  God  taken 
prisoner  &  one  that  hath  submitted  himself  vnto  the  enemie,  yett 
are  bothe  in  some  bondage,  for  ignorance,  custome  of  tyme  or 
people,  passion,  infirmities,  &  such  other  occasions  maie  possiblie 
hould  a  child  of  God  vnder  some  open  sinne,  as  were  the  holie 
patriarkes  in  poUgamie,  Asa  &  others  in  the  suffrance  of  high 
places,  &c.  So  then  it  is  not  euerye  committing  or  lyving  in  sinne 
that  argues  a  man  to  be  simplie  a  seruant  of  sinne,  but  (as  Paul  f 
sayth)  the  comitting  of  a  man's  self  vnto  sinne  to  obey  it,  or 
beyng  ouercome  of  it,  2.  Peter  2.  19,  which  our  Savior  &  St 
lohn  call  (in  a  specyall  sense)  the  doynge  of  sinne.  And  howe  it 
is  that  Christ  sayth  of  these  lewes.  You  are  of  your  father  the 
devill,  for  his  lustes  will  ye  doe,  verse  44;  marke  you  his  lustes 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 


89 


to  showe  that  they  gaue  themselues  ouer  to  the  devilles  pleasure 
to  be  ledd  at  his  will,  &  will  yee  doe  to  note  in  them  a  desperate 
resolucyon  not  to  doe  other  wise,  which  resolucyon,  seing  no  man 
can  knowe  vnles  he  knowes  the  heart  as  Christ  did,  no  man  maie 
dare  nor  can  (without  more  then  pharisaicall  pride)  affyrme  of 
anie  man  professing  the  fayth  of  Christ  that  he  is  the  child  of 
the  devill;  for  vnles  it  be  in  that  case  of  sinne  against  the  holie 
Ghost  which  is  hard  to  be  iudged  &  vnpossible  to  be  cured,  the 
Church  cannott  iudge  anie  man  to  be  anathema  maranatha,  or 
the  child  of  the  devill,  which  sinne  is  not  anie  particuler  vnright- 
eousnes,  but  an  apostacye  from  the  fayth  of  Christe  after  a  man 
hathe  beene  convinced  thereof  in  his  conscyence,  &  tasted  the 
good  word  of  God,  &c.    Heb.  6.  4.  5./ 

Howe  it  is  that  the  Appostle  Paule  doth  admitt  that  greater  ex- 
comunication,  i.  Cor.  16.  22,  in  this  onelie  case  of  not  louyng 
the  Lord  lesus,  which  is  not  easilie  knowne,  &  St.  lohn,  i.  Epis. 
5.  16.  &  17,  doth  not  only  distinguish  the  sinne  vnto  death  from 
all  particuler  kindes  of  vnrighteousnes,  in  saying  (all  vnrighteous- 
nes  is  sinne,  but  there  is  a  sinne  not  vnto  death),  but  doth  also 
teach  that  a  man  (professing  the  fayth)  is  to  be  held  a  brother  & 
to  be  prayed  for  as  a  brother  in  anie  sinne  saue  that  which  is  vnto 
death,  in  which  prayers  are  in  vayne  because  it  is  vnpossible  for 
such  an  one  to  be  renewed  by  repentance./  Therefore,  you  haue 
vtterlie  mistaken  your  ground  of  lo.  8.  44,  while  from  thence  you 
thinke  it  lawfull  for  vs  who  cannott  descerne  as  Christe  did  the 
finall  obstinacye  of  men,  to  iudge  euery  man  a  childe  of  the 
devill,  not  onelie  in  case  of  resisting  the  truth  of  which  he  spake, 
but  in  personall  transgressions  of  which  he  spake  not,  or  not 
simplie,  but  with  respecte  of  meere  vassalage  theretoe./ 
If  it  be  demaunded  to  what  end  then  the  scripture  tells  vs  that 
no  vnrighteous  person  shall  inherit  the  kingdome  of  God,  &c.,  I 
answere,  first,  that  all  such  places  must  be  vnderstood  of  finall 
perseuerance  therin,  els  men  once  fallen  can  neuer  be  recouered, 
&  secondUe  that  these  are  necessarye  admonishmentes  to  euerye 
man  that  he  might  looke  into  his  owne  hearte  in  secrete,  not 
rules  whereby  we  (that  cannott  knowe  with  what  ignorance  or 
remorse  a  man  possesses  his  sinne)  should  sett  the  sentence  of 
condempnacion  vpon  others,  for  what  art  thou  that  iudgest  an 


[Vide  Junius: 
Disputationes  de 
disciplina  eccle- 
siastica,  preside 
lunio,  1600,  to 
alter  Thes.  17.] 


[Hebr.  6.  10. 
10.  26.3 


90  AN  ANSWER  TO 

other  man's  seruant  ?  And  why  forgett  we  that  the  humble  pub- 
lican went  awaie  iustified  rather  then  the  proud  pharesie./ 
[Rom.  14.  If  it  should  yet  be  obiected  in  mayntenance  of  your  censorious 
Luke  18.  conceyte,  that  Christ  biddeth  vs  hould  him  as  a  publican  or  an 
^'  ■  ^  heathen  which  should  not  heare  the  Church,  &  that  therefore  in 
other  cases  then  that  sinne  against  the  hoHe  Ghost  we  male  law- 
fuUye  iudge  incorrigable  sinners  to  be  the  children  of  the  devill, 
I  answere,  first,  that  this  is  after  all  admonition,  and  euen  the 
Churches  censure  is  dispised  &  therefore  to  your  case  could  bring 
noe  releife,  in  as  much  as  you  hould  that  noe  man  in  the  EngHsh 
Churches  hath  yet  outsitt  that  last  admonition  of  the  Church, 
which  is  in  your  opinion  whoHe  wantyng./ 
And  secondlie,  I  answere  that  Christ  doth  nott  allowe  in  that 
case  to  hould  men  the  children  of  the  devill,  but  onelie  to  for- 
beare  all  priuate  &  famihar  conuersacion  with  them  (except  in 
reserued  cases,  as  of  husband  &  wife,  &c.),  as  they  did  of  heathens 
&  of  pubHcans  with  whome  the  lewes  held  it  vnlawfuU  to  eate  & 
drinke.  For  yf  you  think  Christe  allowed  them  to  iudge  all  pub- 
Ucanes  to  be  the  children  of  the  devill,  you  forgett  the  parable 
of  the  pubHcane,  Luke  18,  &  ho  we  the  pharesies  are  condemned 
for  condemning  them  to  much./ 

I  conclude,  therefore,  that  though  you  male  see  such  faultes  in 
men  as  doe  deserue  excomunication,  yett  vnles  in  that  rare  case 
of  a  sinne  vnto  death  you  neyther  can,  nor  maie  iudge  anie  man 
adioyned  to  the  Church  a  childe  of  the  devill;  yett  doubt  I  nott 
but  the  devill  maie  haue  some  children  in  St  Andrewes  of  Nor- 
wich as  well  as  in  your  assemblies  at  Leyden  and  Amsterdam./ 
So  then,  neyther  doth  excomunication  cast  all  the  devilles  chil- 
dren out  of  God's  Church,  neyther  are  they  all  the  devilFs  ap- 
parent children  which  are  worthehe  excomunicated  or  deserue 
soe  to  bee.  No  we  lett  vs  come  to  your  3  principle  included  in  the 
same  proposicion  &  see  whether  saying  Oure  Father  with  such  as 
be  notorious  sinners  defile  a  Christian./ 

You  meane  not  that  the  verie  saying  of  those  wordes  Oure 
Father,  &c.,  shall  defile  you,  although  to  vse  that  prayer  of 
Christe  as  a  prayer  is  held  among  you  a  pollucyon  (nowe  they  are 
deyntilie  pure  whome  such  praiers  as  this  polutes),  but  it  is  not 
saying  those  words,  but  in  that  you  father  the  devill's  children 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  9 1 

vpon  God  by  calling  God  their  and  your  owne  Father  in  common. 

And  what  saie  you  then  to  your  owne  assemblie  or  Mr  Johnson's  ? 

Are  you  sure  there  is  not  one  childe  of  the  devill,  not  one  ludas, 

not  one  hipocrite  amonge  them  all  ?    Dare  you  saie  it  vpon  your 

conscyence  ?    I  knowe  you  dare  nott.    And  are  you  defiled  with 

all  the  sinnes  of  all  those  hipocrites  whome  you  father  vpon  God 

in  saying  Our  Father  ?    Noe  forsooth,  whye  not  ?    Because  they 

are  hipocrites  &  you  knowe  them  not.    O,  they  are  the  devill's 

children,  but  because  you  know  it  not,  you  male  saie  God  is  their 

Father.    Why  then,  behke  it  is  not  the  fathering  of  the  devill's 

children  vpon  God  that  defiles  you  but  your  knowledg  of  it,  for 

yf  it  were  the  thing  it  self,  it  must  defile,  whether  you  knewe  it 

or  not,  as  a  pestilentiall  ayre  infectes  a  man  whether  he  knowe  it 

to  be  pestilentiall  or  knowe  it  not./ 

On  the  other  side,  belike  you  knowe  that  an  open  offendor  is  the 

childe  of  the  devill.    Are  you  sure  of  that,  Mr  Robinson  ?  Knowe 

you  not  that  manie  of  God's  children  committ  open  offences  & 

some  of  the  devill's  doe  not  ?    But  there  is  appeareance.    Ap- 

peareance  ?    What  ?    that  a  sinnefull  Christian  is  noe  Christian, 

or  that  he  is  a  sicke  Christian  ?    If  he  be  noe  Christyan  but  a 

childe  of  Satan,  why  admonish  you  him  ?    If  he  be  a  dead  man, 

not  a  leper,  why  exclude  you  him  ?    Why  rather  doe  you  not 

bury  him  ?/ 

But  yf  you  cannot  knowe  by  anie  particuler  sinne  (except  that 

against  the  holie  Ghoste) ,  that  anie  man  professing  the  fay th  is 

the  childe  of  the  devill  (as  hath  beene  showed),  then  shall  you 

be  noe  more  polluted  by  calling  God  the  Father  of  an  open  sinner 

then  of  a  secrete  hipocrite.    Wherefore,  yf  you  will  keepe  your 

rule,  you  must  neuer  saie  Our  Father  till  you  come  in  heauen, 

where  you  maie  be  sure  to  haue  none  but  God's  true  children  to 

beare  you  companie./ 

But  what  yf  open  sinners  be  God's  true  children  &  you  will  not 

call  God  Father  with  them,  are  you  not  polluted  ?    It  is  not  all 

one  to  denie  those  that  are  his,  as  to  affirme  those  that  are  not 

his,  to  be  his  children,  as  it  is  to  iustifie  the  wicked  &  condemne   [Prouer.  i8.] 

the  innocent  ? 

And  yf  you  feare  to  call  God  their  Father  because  it  is  doubtfull,    [This  distinction 

why  feare  you  not  to  denie  it  beyng  doubtfull,  for  your  soule  dare    their  owne  Mr 


92 


AN  ANSWER  TO 


Clifton  flyes  to, 
page  196,  who 
also  affirmes  the 
lewes  to  haue 
bene  a  holy 
people  of  God, 
not  in  respect  of 
personal!  sanct- 
ity, but  of  the 
externall  couen- 
ant  made  with 
their  fathers, 
page  24  &  25  et 
page  80.] 


[Rom.  9.  4.] 
[6  Act.  2.  38.] 


[Isay  63.  16.  17. 
Isay  I.  3  and  5. 
7.  et  ler.  23.  2. 
Thess.  4.  6. 
Ezech.  16.  20. 
21,  &c.] 


[fEccle.  7.  i{ 
■20.] 


not  saie  directlie  they  are  the  devill's,  or  yf  you  dare,  you  haue 
a  venterous  soule./ 

Finallie,  lett  me  open  to  you  your  mistakeyng,  &  be  not  ashamed 
to  learne  of  him  that  would  be  glad  to  learne  of  you.  You  forgett 
that  God's  children  are  soe  and  soe  called  eyther  in  respect  of 
their  true  estate  of  his  adoption  in  Christe  (which  is  proper  onehe 
to  his  electe,  his  secrete  ones),  or  in  respecte  of  that  profession  of 
covenant  with  God  which  they  make.  Or  yf  you  forgett  not  that, 
you  forgett  this,  viz.,  that  all  oure  iudgment  in  ordinary e  is  by 
that  which  is  professed,  where  it  becomes  vs  to  acknowledg  and 
call  those  the  children  of  God,  whether  hipocrites  or  open  off  end- 
ores,  which  haue  receyued  &  reteyne  the  visible  cognizance  of 
God's  holie  covenante  [?]  &  worship  with  his  saintes./ 
And  in  this  respect  Paule  is  not  affraid  to  saie  that  the  adoption 
did  belong  (generalhe)  to  the  lewes;  &  St  Peter,  that  to  them  & 
to  their  seed  belonged  the  promises;  and  the  prophets  often  euen 
of  the  transgressing  generacyons,  that  theise  yet  were  the  Lord's 
people,  as  Isay  particulerlie  in  their  name  sayth  to  God,  Thou 
art  our  Father,  though  Abraham  knowe  vs  not,  why  hast  thou 
caused  vs  to  erre,  &c.  Yea,  God  himself  doth  ordinarilye  call 
them  (in  respect  of  his  covenant)  his  people,  his  inheritance,  even 
when  he  complaines  of  them  and  threatens  to  cast  them  of,  as 
they  (in  poynt  of  disobedience)  had  done  him./  And  will  you 
still  feare  least  that  should  pollute  you  which  polluted  not  the 
holie  Appostles  &  prophettes,  nor  the  holie  Maiestie  it  self  ? 
Take  heed,  Mr  Robinson,  be  not  iust  ouermuch,t  the  feare  of 
God  dehuers  from  that  alsoe./ 

It  is  a  note  eyther  of  a  seared  conscyence  or  of  great  ignorance, 
when  a  man  shrinkes  at  euery  thing  as  much  as  at  anie  thing 
without  difference,  but  in  you  I  perswade  me  it  is  but  mistakeing, 
which  I  praie  God  you  maie  be  wilUng  to  discouer  &  reforme./ 
It  restes  then,  first,  that  excomunication  castes  not  all  the  devill's 
children  out  of  God's  Church;  secondlie,  that  all  which  it  doth 
or  should  cast  oute  are  not  the  devill's  children;  and  thirdlie, 
that  noe  man  is  defiled  by  saying  Our  Father  with  those  which 
will  ioyne  with  him  in  the  true  worship  of  God ;  and  consequenthe, 
that  therefore  the  want  of  excomunication  in  St.  Andrewes 
byndes  noe  man  inevitablye  to  defile  himself e  as  you  pretended./ 


JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN  93 

And  thus  much  to  your  foure  argumentes  brought  to  proue  your 
first  proposition,  that  where  excomunication  is  wanting,  a  man 
maie  haue  no  communion.    Nowe  come  we  to  your  assumption./ 

But  St  Andrewes  Church  wantes  this  power. 

This  you  onlye  affirme,  &  this  I  denie,  for  that  excomunication  or 
discomuning  of  offensiue  members  by  forbearing  conuersacyon 
with  them,  which  the  Appostle  commends  to  the  Churches,  i. 
Cor.  5.  II,  2.  Thes.  3.  14,  is  in  the  power  of  St.  Andrewes  Church, 
and  yf  they  practize  it  not,  is  their  owne  faulte  &  shame./ 
Secondlie,  that  which  we  call  the  lesser  excomunication  or  sus-  [2.] 
pension  from  the  Lord's  table  is  in  the  hand  of  the  minister  as 
the  Churches  watchman  &  officer  in  that  behalf,  to  be  exercised 
on  anie  ignorant  person  or  notorious  sinner./ 

Thirdlie,  concerning  the  greater  excomunication,  although  it  be  [3.] 
committed  as  touching  the  sentence  to  the  Bishop  &  his  assist- 
antes,  yett  doe  the  lawes  sett  downe  the  generall  causes,  &  the 
parishioners  by  their  officers  make  presentacion  of  such  offences 
as  deserue  it.  The  horrible  abuses  committed  in  the  cariage  of 
this  I  meane  not  to  excuse,  but  the  constitucion  it  self  is  nothing 
soe  ill./ 

Wherefore,  it  cannott  be  said  that  St  Andrewes  parish  simplie 
wantes  the  power  of  excomunication  so  long  as  it  hath  part  of 
it  in  her  owne  hand,  the  rest  in  the  hand  of  her  feofees  of  trust  or 
committies,  who  yf  they  had  care  &  zeale  of  God  in  them  to 
ymproue  their  power  to  the  best,  might  purge  the  Churches  of 
so  much  drosse  as  neyther  you  should  be  scandalized  &  put  into 
schisme,  nor  others  perhaps  wish,  as  they  doe,  to  see  a  change  of 
that  order./ 

If  you  replie  that  in  none  of  these  the  Church  hath  power  of  ex- 
communication in  such  sorte  as  it  ought,  I  answere  that  yet  it 
maie  not  be  simplie  denied  to  haue  that  power  at  all,  no  more 
then  we  maie  be  denied  to  haue  anie  grace  of  the  Spiritt  because 
we  haue  none  in  manner  or  measure  as  we  ought./ 

And  finalUe,  I  praie  you  to  consider  how  excommunicacion  is    CRead  Mr  George 
caried  in  the  other  Churches,  euen  those  of  the  separation,  &    Johnson's  booke 
then  remember  that  he  that  seekes  perfection  in  the  Churches    ^        ^j^g^n      ' 
on  earth  eyther  in  constitucion  or  in  execution  maie  finde  some    neede  noe  more.] 


94      AN  ANSWER  TO  JOHN  ROBINSON  OF  LEYDEN 

nearer  it  then  others,  but  none  in  it,  &  so  noe  more  rest  for  his 
foote  then  the  doue  out  of  the  arke./ 

Thus  haue  I  finished  a  longe  answere,  beyng  desirous  yf  God  will 
to  gyue  you  satisfaction  &  vnwilling  to  interupt  my  other  oc- 
casions with  anie  second  returnes./  I  will  not  end  as  you  did  with 
the  name  of  the  devill,  beyng  (perhaps)  loth  to  salute  me 
(which  is  an  vnmannerlye  fashion  of  sundrie  of  your  side),  but 
I  hartelie  commend  you  to  the  Lord  God  of  mercye  &  truth,  & 
beseech  him  to  open  your  eyes  that  you  maie  see  your  errors 
made,  &  to  giue  you  a  true  humble  spiritt  that  you  maie  not  be 
ashamed  to  become  wise,  and  a  worthye  resolucyon  to  giue  God 
glorye  in  returning  &  causing  those  poore  soules  that  depend 
vpon  your  lippes  to  returne,  that  you  maie  finde  peace  in  the  end 
which  in  this  course  I  am  perswaded  you  cannott./  And  thus 
praying  you  to  passe  by  anie  escapes  of  the  writer  with  loue,  &  to 
beleiue  that  I  loue  your  person  for  the  Lord  Christ  his  sake 
whose  wandring  seruant  I  still  esteeme  you,  I  end  &  rest 

Your  fellow  seruant  &  loving  freind, 
desirous  to  embrace  you  in  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  Churches  of  Christ. 
I  was  willing  inough  in  sundry  re- 
spectes  to  haue  lett  this  answere 
alone  after  I  had  finished  it,  but  that 
I  heard  on  euery  side  of  great  bragges 
cast  out  as  yf  I  could  not  haue 
answered  it,  which  made  me  send  it 
to  you  that  I  might  not  be  guiltie  of 
hardening  them  in  their  sinne,  whose 
error  I  do  much  bewayle.    Farewell./ 


HARVARD  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


Date  Due 


